I 

















A 







;. 



>. " « i i 



V 









- <^ 













<■> 















)• .y 


















•"o S 



% .+*' o 













>°°w 



. v 

'/ , C • \ • * 



W 

,# *. 



A*' * 






- 



-\^ 



-tP ,\X 












J v at v 

c 












* C' 



V * 















^ A^ 










\V 







f*., 












' X^" 
















\\' 










































oo 






- 



V 



N 



AN INQUIRY 



THE USAGE OF BAIITIZH, 



AND THE NATURE OF 



JUDAIC BAPTISM, 



AS SHOWN BT 



JEWISH AND PATKISTIC WEITINGS. 






JAMES W. DALE, D.D., 

PA8T0R OF THE MEDIA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DELAWARE COUNTY, PA. 



Bd.TtTiGi±a 7 t \> to 'Iovdaixov, to poTzwv <ra)[iatuwv dnaWdttov, ou twv 
xatd to <ruv£ido<; d/j.apt7jfxdtwv, Chrysostom. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

WM. EUTTER & CO. 
187 0. 



.Jfe* 



u The real difficulty has been, not that the subject has been discussed too 
much, but that the discussion has not been sufficiently radical and exten- 
sive ; that much very important evidence has been sparingly used, if used 
at all." Beecher. 

" Ie I speak with confident boldness from my own conviction, let him 
contradict still more boldly whom I do not convince." Stier. 



Misses 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, 

By James W. Dale, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 



CAXTON PRESS OF SHERMAN & C0. : 
PHILADELPHIA. 



^^L^ 



GENERAL VIEW OF CONTENTS. 



I. 

PAGE 

Criticisms op Classic Baptism. 

By The Christian Press, The National Baptist, The Examiner and 
Chronicle, The New Englander, The Religious Herald, and The 
Baptist Quarterly, stated and answered, ...... 19-58 

2. 

Jewish Writers. 

Josephus, Philo, Jesus the Son of Sirach, 61-128 



Old Testament. 
As interpreted by Patriots, 129-342 

4. 
Apocrypha. 

II Maccabees 1:19-36; Judith 12: 7-9, . . .' . . 343-375 

5. 

New Testament. 

Jewish Baptisms, 377-388 

6. 

Josephus. 

Judaic and Johannic Baptisms, 389-390 

7. 

Results. 

1. Material for judgment. 2. Usage of Jew and Greek harmonious. 
3. Jewish baptisms not dippings. 4. The theorists made apologists. 
6. Classic Baptism confirmed. 6. Appropriation — Ceremonial puri- 
fication, 391-4U0 



( i ii ) 



BAPTISMS EXAMINED. 



JEWISH WEITEKS. 



Condition 


of Intusposition and Condition 


WITHOUT 


Intusposition. 








PAGE 


1. 


Baptized, sword. Jewish War, ii, 18, .... 


. 61 


2. 


" 


ship. Life of Josephus, $ 3, . 








. 64 


3. 


<( 


" Jew. Ant., ix, 10, 








. 64 


4. 


u 


iii, 9 r . 








. 64 


5. 


u 


drowned. " iii, 10, 








. 65 


6. 


u 


killed. " iii, 10, 








. 65 


7. 


u 


drowned. " xv, 3, . 








. 66 


8. 


u 


" " i, 22, . 








. 66 


9. 


a 


ship. " iii, 8, . 








. 69 


10. 


u 


" Jewish War, ii, 20, 








. 71 


11. 


tc 


killed. " i, 27, 








. 74 


12. 


u 


city, Jotapata. Jewish War, iii, 7, 






. 76 


13. 


a 


" Jerusalem. " iv, 3, 






. 78 


14. 


a 


reason. Philo, .... 






. 83 


15. 


a 


made drunk. Philo, 






. . 84 


16. 


u 


" Jew. Ant., x, 9, 






. 92 


17. 


u 


stupefied. " iv, 4, 






. 100 


18. 


u 


purified ceremonially. Sirach, 34: 30, 






. 112 


19. 


u 


John's and Jewish. Jew. Ant., xviii, 6, 




. 389 






Old Testament. 




20. 


Baptism 


of the waters, change of condition. Gen. 1 : 2, 


. 134 


21. 


cc 


of a fountain, » " Ex. 15 : 23-25 


. 143 


22. 


(C 


by deluge, " " Gen. 6 : 13, 


. 148 


23. 


« 


of Naaman, " " II Kings, 5:1 


i, . 154 


24. 


« 


by Bethesda, " " John 5: 4, 


. 164 


25. 


u 


by washing, " " Levit. 15:5, 


. 169 


26. 


" 


u u a 


Eze 


k. 16 


. 4 q 


. 172 



27. " by pouring and sprinkling, change of 

condition, Ezek. 36: 25, 26, . 195 

28. " by washing hands and feet, change of 

condition, Ex. 40 : 30-33, 

29. " by sprinkling, change of condition, Levit. 14:4-7, 

30. ' ' by washing and sprinkling, change of 



condition, Ps. 51 : 2, 7. 



175 
184 



186 



( ^ ) 



BAPTISMS EXAMINED. 



81. 

32. 
83. 
84. 
35. 



37. 
88. 

39. 
40. 
41. 

42. 
43. 
44. 
45. 
46. 



Baptism by circumcision, change of condition, Joshua 5 : 3, 9, 

" by drops of blood, " " Exod. 12 : 7, 12, 13, 

" by flaming sword, " " Gen. 3 : 24, 

" by a coal of fire, " t; Isaiah 6: 5-7, 

" by water, spirit, and fire, change of 

condition, Isaiah 4:4, 
of iron and by sins, change of condition, II Kings 6 : 5, 6, 



by pollution, 
by suffering, 
by sincerity, 
by repentance, 
by iniquity, 
by sea and cloud, 
into Moses, 
by the Jordan, 
into Joshua, 
by pouring, 



Job 9: 30, 31, 
Ps. 69:1,2, . 
Cant. 5:12, . 
Isaiah 1 : 16, 17, 
Isaiah 21 : 4, . 
Ex. 14:19,31, 

I Cor. 10:2, . 

II Kings 2: 8, 
Josh. 3:16, 17, 
I Kings 18 : 32, 



PAGE 

206 
216 
222 
239 

248 
251 

268 
272 
274 
277 
284 
289 
305 
315 
320 
328 



Apocrypha. 

47. Baptism by sprinkling, change of condition, II Mace. 1 : 19-36, 346 

48. " by spring water, " " Judith 12 : 5-9, . 352 

New Testament. 

49. Baptisms, diverse baptisms, change of condition. Heb. 9:9, 10, . 379 



Kesults. 



BAPTISMS OF JOSEPHUS, PHILO, AND SON OF 
SIRACH, CLASSIFIED. 



INTUSPOSITION "WITHOUT INFLUENCE. 

He mersed the entire sword into his throat/' 



PAGE 

Josephus, 61 



Intusposition with Influence. 



Vessel mersed in the Adriatic. 
Vessel on the point of being mersed. 
Billow, rising above, mersed them. 
Mersed with their vessels. 
Mersed, rising to the surface. 



Josephus, 63 

" 63 

63 

63 

" 63 



Intusposition for Influence. 

Pressing down and mersing until they drowned him. . Josephus, 66 

Mersed in the pool he died » " 66 

Mersed his ship voluntarily " 66 



4. 



Figure Grounded in Destructive Mersion. 



Swam away from the city as from a mersed ship. 
As a last storm mersed the vounsr men. 



Josephus, 71 
71 



SECONDARY USE. 



Baptism without Mersion. 



He would baptize the city. 

"Who baptized the city 

Reason baptized by things coming upon it. 

( vi) 



Josephus, 76 

" 76 

Philo, 76 



BAPTISMS CLASSIFIED. 



Vll 



Appropriation. 
Before they become thoroughly drunk (baptized). . 



PAGE 

Philo, 84 



Verbal Figure. 
Baptized by drunkenness into insensibility. . 



Josephus, 92 



Ceremonial Purification. 

Baptizing by heifer ashes, they sprinkled it. 
Baptized from the dead. 



Josephus, 100 
Son of Sirach, 112 



BAPTISMS OF SCRIPTUKE AKD APOCRYPHA. 

AGENCIES AND CHANGES OF CONDITION. 



WATER BAPTISMS. 

WATER ITSELF BAPTIZED. 

A New Quality Imparted. 

PAGE 

The Spirit moved upon the waters, 134 

The pool of Myrrha made sweet, 143 

Baptism by Water. 

Special Influence Exerted. 

Deluge, purging the world, 148 

Jordan, healing the leprosy, 154 

Bethesda, curative of any disease, 164 

Applied to the Body, more or less. 

General washing, . . . . . . . . . . .169 

" " 172 

Part of the body, hands, and feet, 175 

Pouring and Sprinkling. 

Leviticus 14 : 4-7, 184 

Psalm 51 : 2, 7, 186 

Ezekiel 36 : 25, 26, 195 

Baptism by Blood. 

Circumcision, 206 

Blood dropping from the cross, . . . . . . . . 216 

Baptism by Fire. 

Water, Spirit, and Fire, 248 

Coal of Fire, 239 

Flaming Sword, 222 

( viii ) 



BAPTISMS OF SCRIPTURE AND APOCRYPHA. IX 



Baptisms Involving Mental and Moral Influence. 

PAGE 

Sins, 262 

Corruption, 262 

Trouble, 262 

Faith, 262 

Kepentance, 277 

Iniquity, 284 

Baptism and Miracle. 

Bed Sea, 289 

Jordan divided, 315 

Passage of the Jordan, 320 

Altar of Carmel, 328 

Temple fire rekindled, 345 

Baptisms Ceremonially Purifying. 

Baptism from heathen camp, 352 

Baptism from diverse defilements, 379 



Symbol Baptism. 

Ceremonially Purifying Baptism a Symbol of Spiritual Purification. 

Judaic and Johannic baptism in contact, 389 



PATEISTIC INTERPRETERS. 



Genesis 1 : 2. 

PAGE 

Tertullian, Didymus Alexandrinus, Ambrose, Jerome, and Basil 

Magnus, . 134 

Exodus 15 : 23-25. 
Ambrose, . . 143 

Genesis 6 : 13 ; 7 : 1, 18, 22. 
Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Didymus Alexandrinus, . . 148 

II Kings 5 : 14. 
Septuagint, Ambrose, 154 

John 5:4. 

Ambrose, Didymus Alexandrinus, . . . . - . . . 164 

Leyiticus 15 : 5. 
Chrysostom, Clemens Alexandrinus, 169 

Ezekiel 16 : 4, 9. 
Jerome, 172 

Ezekiel 36 : 25, 26. 

Jerome, Hilary, Didymus Alexandrinus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, 

Cyprian, 196 

Exodus 40 : 30-33. 
Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, .... 175 

Leviticus 14 : 4-7. 

Ambrose, 185 

(* ) 



PATRISTIC INTERPRETERS. XI 

Psalm 51 : 2, 7. 

PAGE 

Ambrose, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, 18G 

Joshua 5:3, 9. 
Justin Martyr, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril, Origen, .... 207 

Exodus 12: 7, 12, 13. 

Chrysostoin, Gregory Nazienzen, Theophylact, Cyprian, Tertullian, . 216 

Genesis 3 : 24. 
Ambrose, Origen, Basil, 222 

Isaiah 6 : 5-7. 
Ambrose, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Eusebius, .... 239 

Isaiah 4 : 4. 
Basil Magnus, 248 

II Kings 6 : 5, 6. 
Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenseus, Chrysostom, Ambrose, . . 251 

Job 9: 30, 31. 
Aquila, 269 

Psalm 9:15. 
Jerome, 270 

Psalm 69 : 1, 2. 
Symmachus, Jerome, 272 

Canticles 5 : 12. 
Ambrose, 274 

Isaiah 1 : 16, 17. 
Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Jerome, 277 

Isaiah 21 : 4. 
Septuagint, 284 

Exodus 14 : 19-31. 
Ambrose, Basil Magnus, John of Damascus, Didymus Alexandrinus, 290 



Xll PATRISTIC INTERPRETERS. 

I Cor. 10:2. 

PAGE 

Paul, 305 

II Kings 2 : 8. 
Origen, Cyril, 315 

Joshua 3 : 16, 17. 
Origen, 321 

I Kings 18 : 32-38. 
Origen, Basil Magnus, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, . . . 328 



APOCEYPHA. 

II Maccabees 1 ; 19-36. 
Ambrose, 345 

Judith 12 : 5-9. 
Septuagint, 352 

NEW TESTAMENT. 

Hebrews 9 : 9. 10. 

Hilary, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Gregory Nazi- 

anzen, 379 



PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE AND OF THE 
APOCRYPHA EXAMINED, 

WITH THE PAGE WHERE THEY MAY BE FOUND. 





PAGE 




PAGE 


Genesis 1 : 2, 


. 134 


Psalm 9 : 15, 


. 270 


Genesis 3 : 24, 


. 222 


Psalm 51 : 2, 


. 187 


Genesis G : 13, 


. 148 


Psalm 69 : 1, 


. 272 


Exodus 12 : 7, 


: 2i6' 


Canticles 5 : 12, 


. 274 


Exodus 14 : 19, 


. 290 


Isaiah 1 : 16, 


. 277 


Exodus 15: 23, 


. 143 


Isaiah 4 : 4, 


. 248 


Exodus 40 : 30, 


. 175 


Isaiah 6 : 5, 


. 239 


Leviticus 14 : 4, 


. 185 


Isaiah 21 : 4, 


. 284 


Leviticus 15 : 5, 


. 169 


Ezekiel 16 : 4, 


. 172 


Joshua 3 : 16, 


. 321 


Ezekiel 36 : 25, 


. 196 


Joshua 5 : 3, 


. 207 


John 5:4,. 


. 164 


I Kings 18 : 32, 


. 328 


I Cor. 10 : 2, 


. 305 


II Kings 2 : 8, 


. 315 


Hebrews 9 : 9, 


. 379 


II Kings 5 : 14, 


. 154 


II Maccabees 1 : 


19, . 245 


II Kings 6 : 5, 


. 251 


Judith 12:5, 


. 352 


Job 9 : 30, . 


. 269 


Sirach 34 : 30, 


. 112 



( xiii 



AUTHOES AND WOEKS QUOTED. 



Ambrose, 
Anastasius, 
Aristeas, 
Aristophanes, 
Aristotle, 
Aquila, 

Baptist Quarterly, 
Basil Magnus, 
Beecher, President, 
Bekker, 
Blair, Dr., 
Bonfrer, 
Booth, 
Buxtorf, 
Calvin, John, 
Campbell, Principal, 
Carson, A., LL.D., 
Christian Press, 
Chrysostom, 
Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Clemens Komanus, 
Conant, Dr., 
Cox, Dr., 
Cyprian, 

Cyril of Alexandria, 
Cyril of Jerusalem, 
Dagg, Dr., 
Didymus, Alex., 
Donnegan, 
Erotianus, 
Eusebius, 
Ewing, Prof., 
Examiner and Chronicle, 
Fairbairn, Principal, 
Franklin, Dr. Benjamin, 
Fuller, Dr., 
(xiv) 



Fiirst, 
Gale, Dr., 

Gesenius, 

Godwin, Prof., 

Gregory Nazianzen, 

Gregory Thaumaturgus, 

Hamilton, Sir William, 

Halley, President, England, 

Hesiod, 

Hilary, 

Hippocrates, 

Hippolytus, 

Homer, 

Hudson, Principal, Oxford, 

Ingham E., London, 

Irenaeus, 

Jerome, 

John of Damascus, 

Josephus, 

Justin Martyr, 

Karnes, Lord, 

Kendrick, A. C, D.D., 

Kuhner, 

Lowenthal, Rev., 

Lucian, 

Matthies, 

Mercurialis, 

Migne, Abbe, 

Miller, Rev. Samuel, D.D., 

Milton, 

Morrell, 

National Baptist, 

New Englander, 

Nourry, Alex. D. Le, 

Origen, 

Ovid, 



AUTHORS AND WORKS QUOTED. 



XV 



Philo, 

Plato, 

Plutarch, 

Quintillian, 

Keligious Herald, 

Kipley, Prof., 

Rosenmuller, 

Scott, Sir Walter, 

Septuagint, 

Shakspeare, 

Son of Sirach, 

Smith, Dr. W., 

Stewart, Kev. Charles, 

Stourdza, Alex, de, 



Struzius, 

Stuart, Professor, 

Symmachus, 

Tertullian, 

Theophylact, 

Tholuck, Professor, 

Yalesius, 

Webster, Noah, LL.D., 

Worcester, Sam'l, LL.D., 

Wilkinson, Sir J. Gardner, 

Wilson, Professor, Belfast, 

Williams, Kev. Koger, 

Williams, Dr. Edward, 

Xenophon. 



JUDAIC BAPTISM 



(17) 



JUDAIC BAPTISM 



CONSIDERED IN ITS NATURE AND AS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE 
USAGE OF 



BAnTIZfl. 



Judaic Baptism properly denotes a baptism which is dis- 
tinctively Jewish. Under this title, however, will be intro- 
duced all baptisms of whatever kind spoken of by Jewish 
writers, as well as those facts and observances recorded in the 
Jewish Scriptures, which are declared by Patristic writers, 
to be baptisms. 

The Apostle Paul speaks of a baptism connected with the 
miraculous division and passage of the Red Sea, although 
there is no such verbal statement in the original narrative. 
In like manner, the Patrists speak of many facts in the 
Jewish history and of many ritual observances in the Jewish 
ceremonial as baptisms, making interpretation not of words 
but of things. This course of Paul and of Patrist furnishes 
us with an exceedingly valuable help to determine the mean- 
ing of the Greek word. To many of the Patrists the Greek 
language was their native tongue. The use of a Greek word, 
by them, has equal authority for determining its meaning as 
its use by Plato or Plutarch. There is, also, this vantage- 
ground secured in the application of the word to Jewish 
history and ceremonial, — the facts are thoroughly known, 
and the nature and mode of the ordinances are minutely de- 
scribed. Thus we have no blank to fill up by our precon- 
ceptions or fruitful imaginations. We are fast bound by 
facts. 

If this field of inquiry has been explored, to any extent, 
I am not aware of it. While, therefore, it will have sorne- 

(19) 



20 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

what of freshness, it will, I think, be also found to possess 
a very clear and imperative authority for determining the 
meaning of this contested word. 

NO DEPARTURE FROM THE RADICAL MEANING. 

This investigation, will present no antagonism to the radi- 
cal meaning of fiaxr'Zaj as developed by Classical usage. On 
the contrary, we shall sternly and always insist on that mean- 
ing. The word, carried into the history of God's covenant 
people, will, indeed, be found in a new atmosphere. And 
when applied to the pure and purifying rites of revelation, 
it will be found to assume another coloring from that with 
which it was invested when found amid the Bacchanalian 
orgies of heathenism. The radical meaning of the word re- 
mains the same; the laws of language development remain 
the same; and the distinctive result, although without ex- 
emplification amid the utterly alien facts of heathenism, has 
the most absolute indication in the principles and actual de- 
velopments of Classical usage. 

It being, then, very foreign from our purpose to lay a new 
foundation whereon to establish a Judaic meaning for this 
word, but proposing to stand squarely on that already laid 
in the Classics, it will be of interest and not without instruc- 
tion, to learn what Baptist writers think of that foundation. 

Classic Baptism had its severe limitations attached to it, 
for the purpose of securing the attention of all, and more 
especially of Baptist scholars, to a single point, — the classical 
use, and the frank and full expression of sentiment upon it. 
The result has proved happy, so far as scholars generally are 
concerned ; but only limitedly as relates to the representa- 
tives of Baptist sentiment. Among these there has been an 
unexpected and unwonted reticence. Still, some have spoken, 
and these sufficiently indicate the course of future sentiment. 

As many have not had the opportunity to see the state- 
ments of Baptist criticism, who would feel an interest to do 
so, I will furnish a synopsis of them, as not without value in 
their bearing on our continued inquiry. 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 21 

BAPTIST CKITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 
THE CHRISTIAN PRESS. 

The criticisms, first in order of time, are those of " The 
Christian Press." I give the remarks of this periodical be- 
cause Baptists may feel a pride in them, although others 
may be at a loss to know why. This is their tenor: 

1. " The author of the book shows himself to be an igno- 
ramus, to stand up in the face of scholars and say that the 
classic meaning of the word is to sprinkle and pour." 

This statement (aside from the " ignoramus " part of it, 
which every day makes me feel is too true) bears the most 
conclusive internal evidence that the writer had never seen 
even so much as the outside covering of Classic Baptism. 
Tie evidently thought with Sydney Smith, that to read a 
book before criticizing it, was only a hamper to genius. 

2. " Professor Stuart, and men of that class, have published 
to the world, that the classic use of the word in all eases, and 
in all places where the Greek word is used, is to immerse, dip, 
overwhelm" Unwilling to receive the sentiments of my old 
instructor through this new channel, I turned to Prof. Stuart's 
treatise, and there found this statement (p. 16), "The words 
fidr.rai and paTtTiZw have, in the Greek classical writers, the 
sense of dip, plunge, immerge, sink, &c. But there are varia- 
tions 'from this prevailing and usual signification." In this 
statement the meanings of the two verbs are thrown together; 
the first two belonging to ftd-rw, the last two to /?a-rt'f>. On 
p. 22, " In all the derived and secondary meanings of these words, 
it would seem plain, that the Greek writers made a diverse 
and distinct use, never confounding them." Then, there are 
"derived and secondary meanings." And on p. 34, "Both 
the classic use and that of the Septuagint show, that washing 
and copious affusion are sometimes signified by this word. 
Consequently, the rite of baptism may have been performed 
in one of these ways." And now let me ask, whether these 
extracts do not show that the critic had no more seen Prof. 
Stuart's treatise than he had seen Classic Baptism ? 



22 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

3. " Of what authority is a mere pastor, whose business it 
is to preach, and especially one whose life has been spent in 
a small country village" — 

It was my lot to hear in a Baptist church, a Baptist preacher 
advocate a Baptist Bible, on this wise : "I argued in the pul- 
pit of a Baptist minister, not favorable to a new Version, the 
necessity of a new Translation, because there were words in 
the old not understood. I quoted, in illustration, 'Jacob 
sod pottage.' Why, said he, Brother B., I know what that 
means; I've dug sods many a time! He then pressed his 
point by appealing to his own case, saying, I was preaching 
from the text, < they that are alive shall not prevent them that 
sleep,' and having some peculiar views on the resurrection, 
sustained them by 4 prevent ' in the sense to hinder. After 
service a friend said to me, Brother B., ' prevent' dont mean 
to hinder; but I replied, Think I dont know what prevent 
means? It does mean to hinder. However, I found out 
afterward, that prevent does not mean to hinder. So I prove 
to you we must have a new Version." If these friends of 
the critic were the kind of men he puffs at, as " mere pastors, 
whose business is to preach," as it is a family affair, I have 
nothing to say. 

But as this good writer seems to appreciate only a certain 
style of evidence, and assured that it will make him look 
with admiration on Classic Baptism, should he ever have 
the good fortune to see its cover, I will give him the im- 
portant information, that the " country village" in which the 
greater part of the life of its author was spent, contains only 
something less than a million of souls. 

4. " It is too late in the day for any upstart with his 
pedantry" — " We sincerely pity any such pretender, and 
consider the lunatic asylum more befitting for him." "His 
words are powerless among all scholars, of all names, and 
his name is branded for the ignorance and audacity which 
attach to it." 

So endeth the first criticism of the pedantry, and pretence, 
and lunacy, and ignorance, and presumption, and audacity, 
and impudence, of the upstart and ignoramus. 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 23 

The man who writes in this style must look out for the 
Quaker, who said to the cursing sailor, " That's right, friend, 
spit it all out ; thee can never go to heaven with such trash 
on thy stomach.''' 

THE NATIONAL BAPTIST. 

The tone of this article is, happily, different from that of 
the preceding. The ignoramus and the upstart, the pedant 
and pretender, the lunatic and the presumptuous, the auda- 
cious and the impudent, becomes converted into " an author 
of no small ability," whose " work is worthy of careful atten- 
tion/' while " the deliberateness and fulness of the investi- 
gation challenge our admiration." 

1. Embarrassment is expressed at the statement, " that 
the word immerse expresses not act, but condition. It is a 
fundamental point with Mr. Dale. We wish we knew more 
clearly what he means?" 

It is with the greatest pleasure that I seek to relieve this 
embarrassment. It arises from an oversight. The position 
of Classic Baptism is not adequately stated by the language, 
"Immerse expresses not act, but condition," — much less by 
the statement, "Immerse is a transitive verb, just as the 
corresponding Greek word is, and it is sheer nonsense to 
insist that it signifies only condition." This statement not 
only represents inadequately the view of Classic Baptism, 
but so misrepresents it as, indeed, to convert it into " sheer 
nonsense." I have not the slightest disposition to charge 
this to the art of the controversialist, but sincerely believe 
that it is attributable to oversight, however remarkable that 
oversight may be. In the paragraph but one preceding this 
statement, the reviewer quotes this definition: "Baptizo, 
in primary use, expresses condition, characterized by com- 
plete intusposition, without expressing, and with absolute in- 
difference to tlteform of the act by which such intusposition 
may be effected, as, also, without other limitations." Surely 
there is nothing in this definition which "signifies only con- 
dition." There is act in the verb, but the form of the act is 



24 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

not expressed, while the condition, effected by the implied act, 
is directly expressed. 

Take a parallel word — " Envelop the package." The com- 
mand expresses no form of act; it implies act, while express- 
ing a condition of covering in which the package is to be 
put. Envelop, like merse, expresses condition, while the 
form of the act involved is unexpressed. 

This, I am sure, the reviewer will not consider " sheer 
nonsense ;" nor will he feel at liberty to say, " Mr. Dale as- 
sures us, that here is a transitive verb which does not and 
cannot express action, but only condition." 

2. " Mr. Dale frequently implies, and in more than one in- 
stance expresses, a conviction that Baptist writers on this 
subject are not honest." 

This charge is not a matter of indifference to me. It is 
very painful. I hold the flinging of such charges into the 
faces of Christian opponents in contemptuous abhorrence. 
If they appeared in Classic Baptism I would blush to own it 
as any production of mine. Such utterances betoken weak- 
ness and wickedness. When I have to resort to them I will 
stop writing. 

3. " Mr. Dale puts a new meaning on the word immerse, 
and refuses to receive the meaning which dictionaries and 
all English literature assign to it." 

No meaning, new or old, has been put on "immerse." 
Report has been made of that meaning put on it by " all 
English literature." Courts of law require, that the best 
evidence within reach shall be adduced to sustain any cause 
brought before them, under peril of the conclusion, that if 
adduced it would be unfavorable. The best evidence within 
reach, or which can exist, has been adduced, — the usage of 
accredited writers. If this is not accepted, let it be rebutted 
by testimony of equal authority. 

4. The reviewer thinks it disingenuous to say, " In this 
definition, by the use of 'to put' — 'put into or under' — Dr. 
Conant gives a greater breadth and freedom to baptize than 
any of his friends who have preceded him. They have in- 
sisted that it meant to dip, to plunge, and nothing else. Dr. 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 25 

Conant says, (in this definition by the use of put — put into or 
under,) " it no more means to dip, to plunge, than does to put ; 
that is, it means no such thing." He asks, "Is this fair 
and honorable dealing? Does Dr. Conant say, ' It no more 
means to dip, to plunge, than does to put?' " 

This statement is so plain and so obviously true, that it is 
hard to imagine how the idea of " disingenuousness" has 
arisen in the mind of this respected reviewer. If /?a7rrc'!> 
has a meaning so broad as to be faithfully represented by 
"put into or under," then, it is simply impossible that it can 
have the narrow modal meaning "to dip, to plunge, and 
nothing else." And, thus, Dr. C. says, (by his definition,) 
" that the word no more means to dip, to plunge, than does 
to put" 

5. After some general remarks, to show that dip and im- 
merse are equivalents, the reviewer answers himself by say- 
ing, " We are free to say that Mr. Dale's labors cannot be 
worthless or unimportant. He has examined the passages 
in Greek classical authors and classified them, and has es- 
tablished a difference in use between fid^Ta) and fia-riZio. 
His statement of that difference seems to us defective, but 
that there is a difference is evident. He has, also, brought 
clearly out what our own examination had before proved, 
that the word ftaitTga) does not of itself involve the lifting, 
out from the fluid of that which is put in. In other words, 
that it is in that respect exactly equivalent to the English 
word immerse" 

But if immerse never takes its object out, and dip always 
takes its object out, how is it possible that they can be 
"equivalent?" The Baptist view of the word, as heretofore 
advocated, is not only seriously but fatally erroneous. 

EXAMINER AND CHRONICLE. 

The critical complaint of this periodical is made on the 
ground of a lack of submission to dictionaries. 

1. " This interchanging of the words dip and plunge and 
immerse is the common and established use of the words. 



26 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

The author himself is the transgressor. Standard lexicog- 
raphers use them to define each other." 

To go back to dictionaries in this discussion is to go back 
to a battle-ground that has been fought over a thousand 
times without beneficial result. 

The critic gives the definition of Webster, " To dip. To 
plunge or immerse for a moment or short time." And that 
of Worcester, " To dip. To immerse; to plunge into any 
liquid." Who, now, shall be umpire between Webster, who 
says momentary continuance belongs to this act, and Wor- 
cester, who says nothing of any such element? 

He, also, gives Webster, " Immerse. To put under water 
or other fluid ; to plunge, to dip," and Worcester, "Immerse. 
To put under water or other fluid; to plunge into, to im- 
merge, to overwhelm, to dip." 

Suppose, now, I take the general definition, in which 
there is no form of act and no limitation of time, and insist 
upon that as the true meaning; while some one else seizes 
on a particular defining word, dip, for example, in which 
there is both definite form and limited duration, and insists 
upon that as the true exposition ; who shall decide ? 

Is it not most unreasonable to turn from an inquiry into 
the meaning of a word, by exhausting the cases of its use, 
to dictionaries, among whose tens of thousands of words per- 
haps not one has had its meaning so determined? It is only 
surprising that dictionaries have that general correctness 
which they do possess. 

Controversial writers who would accurately define the 
meanings of single words, can never do their work by enter- 
ing into the labors of the general lexicographer. Baptists 
have defined the word in question with the severest limita- 
tions. And when the supreme authority of usage is shown 
to condemn such definition, a cry for help is made upon 
lexicographers. 

The statement that dip, and plunge, and immerse, as ex- 
pressing the same idea, are interchanged in critical, or any 
other rational writings, is most incorrect. . There is such an 
interchange in Baptist writings, and too much in all writings 



BAPTIST CRITICISxMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 27 

on the subject of baptism. But there is a special reason for 
this. It is found, mainly, in the original confounding to- 
gether of {Sax™ and (laaeHZm as absolute equivalents. Thus 
dipping, and dyeing, and plunging, and mersing, formed an 
undivided common heritage. When dyeing was claimed, 
and surrendered, as exclusive property, dip was still left in 
common. Demand is now made for it as the sole property 
of fid-ru*. When this demand is met, the partnership be- 
tween these words will be thoroughlj' dissolved, and /3«7rrc!> 
will take its place among that class of verbs to which it be- 
longs, and the mixing up of a definite act of momentary con- 
tinuance, and of a condition unlimited in continuance, will 
come to an end. Having tasted of the good wine, we cannot 
go back to the worse. 

2. In a second article this periodical adduces a second 
objection, which is regarded as of sufficient importance to 
engross the entire article. It is directed against the final 
summary statement, and is presented as follows: 

" We have reviewed the Rev. Mr. Dale's book, but we 
refer to it again. The conclusion is this: ' Whatever is capa- 
ble of changing the character, state, or condition of any ob- 
ject, is capable of baptizing that object; and by such change 
of character, state, or condition, does in fact baptize it/ 

"A definition is usually made more clear and forcible by 
examples. The first illustration that occurs to us after read- 
ing this definition, is the baptism of gunpowder by a match. 
How thoroughly the condition of the powder is changed in 
that case ! Was it the Emancipation Proclamation of Mr. 
Lincoln, or was it the surrender of Lee, that baptized 
millions of negroes from chattels into freemen ? What a 
famous baptizer the stomach is? How thoroughly it changes 
the character and condition of meat, fruits, and vegetables! 
Some baptisms are very gradual. How long it takes, for 
instance, to baptize an acorn into an oak ! The baptism 
of fire — how plain and pregnant that expression becomes, 
in the light of Mr. Dale's definition ! Yes, fire is a great 
baptizer. It baptizes water into steam, dough into bread, 
wood and coal into ashes and smoke. Our fire-places, and 



28 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

stoves, and furnaces, what are they but baptisteries? Our 
great factories, what unwearied and efficient administrators 
of baptism they are ! What quantities of wool or cotton 
they baptize into cloth every day! Our chemists and apothe- 
caries, too, what expeditious and thorough baptizers the}' 
are!" 

The Examiner, no doubt, believes that there is substantial 
logic under this dash of wit and ridicule, or it would not 
have put it into type. Classic Baptism must be prepared to 
stand fire, even though it be " wild fire," which any one 
may choose to direct against it. Any assault, within the 
limits of goodbreeding, whether under the mask of Comus 
or with the open and frowning front of Tragedy, will receive 
both toleration and welcome from its author. 

It is, also, obvious, that " the conclusion" must be shown 
to be invulnerable to assaults of every character. This is 
the more important because the aspect of baptism therein 
presented is not familiar, and, consequently, forms of 
thought not heretofore regarded as baptisms, or as capable 
of being thrown into such a form, might be received with 
embarrassment or be entirely rejected. I will, therefore, 
resist the temptation to " answer the unwise according to 
their unwisdom," and will give a sober reply to these sug- 
gestions of the Examiner. 

1. As to the gunpowder baptism. In so far as this may 
be spoken of as a baptism, at all, it is nothing more nor less 
than martyr baptism by fire. The flesh and bones of a 
"witness" for Jesus subjected to the influence of fire are 
changed into ashes. "Gunpowder subjected to the influence 
of fire is changed into sulphurous vapor. The baptisms are 
not distinctively the same. Martyr fire effects not merely 
a destructive baptism, but also, a purifying baptism. A 
lighted match effects only a destructive baptism. 

2. Baptism into freedom. The Examiner ought to be 
familiar with the historical baptisms of bondsmen, "in the 
name of a freeman," when about to be released from slavery. 
And I hope that, before long, it will also understand, that 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 29 

the millions of Israel were by the proclamation of Jehovah, 
and the issue of the struggle of the Egyptian hosts in the 
rushing sea waters, baptized, from a condition of bondage 
to Pharaoh, into a condition of freedom-subjection to Moses. 

3. " What a baptizer the stomach is !" Yes, even beyond 
what the wit of the Examiner has discovered. (1.) The 
stomach baptizes pork and cabbage (as the receptacle down 
into which they are swallowed), as the ship and her crew are 
baptized, swallowed up, by the gaping mouth of old ocean. 
This baptism the Examiner does not like; it lasts too long. 
(2.) The stomach baptizes its contents by thoroughly chang- 
ing their condition through its peculiar influences, just as 
ocean by its briny waters disintegrates the oaken timber and 
iron bolts of the ship, as well as the flesh and bones of her 
hapless crew. (3.) The stomach, when it fails to baptize 
pork and cabbage, baptizes the body and the mind through 
this leaden burden which it carries. It is of escape from 
this baptism through the stomach, Plutarch says, " A great 
resource truly for a pleasant day is a good temperament of 
the body unbaptized and unburdened." (Classic B., p. 338.) 
Is there more here of stomachic baptism than the Examiner 
bargained for? " What a famous baptizer the stomach is !" 

4. Acorn baptism. " How long it takes to baptize an 
acorn into an oak!" Yes, quite long; yet not near so long 
as to baptize " all nations." The Examiner will not deny- 
that a burial is a baptism. An acorn buried in the ground 
is baptized, then. How long does this baptism last? The 
burial baptism of the acorn brings with it sweet influences 
from earth and air and sky, by which it receives a baptism 
into life, whose new condition is the oak. After all, this 
baptism is not so funny. 

5. "Fire is a great baptizer." A very true statement, 
and one of which the Examiner will hear more, if Judaic 
Baptism should be read. Baptism by any influence imports 
the subjection of the baptized object to the full controlling 
power of that influence. "There are some things which 
exert over certain objects a definite and unvarying influence. 
Whenever, therefore, jSawTeCai is used to express the relation 



30 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

between such agencies and their objects, it gives develop- 
ment in the completest manner to that specific influence." (C. 
B., p. 316.) The specific influences of fire are : 1. A power 
to destroy. 2. A power to purify. 

When fire is used to bake bread, or to boil the kettle, it 
is used for the development of neither of these influences. 
They are not, therefore, cases of baptism. Where fire is 
used to consume fuel, it is inappropriate to speak of it as a 
case of baptism by fire, because the object is not to destroy 
the fuel, but to give warmth to those around it. But if any 
one chooses to set his woods, or his house, or his bonds and 
mortgages, on fire, he will secure what the classics would 
thoroughly understand by a baptism of fire. 

It is a blundering use of language, however, to say that 
the object burned is " baptized into ashes" There is neither 
truth nor sense in saying, that a burned object is "baptized 
into ashes." "Ashes" constitute the object itself in another 
form. You cannot put a thing into itself. The proper ex- 
pression is, as everywhere through the Classics, baptized by 
fire. This carries its own explanation with it. If it is a 
combustible body, then we know that it is destroyed. If it 
is a metallic ore, then we know that it is purified from its 
dross. If it is the "impure lips" of Isaiah, then we know 
that they are purified from defilement. "Fire is a great 
baptizer." 

6. " Our fire-places, and stoves, and furnaces, what are 
they all but baptisteries?" But the Examiner is superficial 
in his examination. Why not complete the catalogue? Let 
me help the critic by authority more unquestionable than 
that which has furnished the fire-place, stove, and furnace 
baptistery. 

What are our grog-shops, with their bad whisky, but bap- 
tisteries ? (C. B., pp. 289, 319.) What are our eating-houses, 
with tough beef and half-baked pastry, but baptisteries ? 
(C. B., p. 338.) What are our apothecary-shops, with their 
soporifics, and sedatives, and stimulants, but baptisteries? 
(C. B., p. 318.) What are our pest-houses, reeking with 
malaria, but baptisteries? (C. B., p. 304.) What are our 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 31 

fortune-telling establishments, with their lying arts, but bap- 
tisteries? (C. B.,idem.) What are our schools, that "cram" 
the brain of childhood, but baptisteries? (C. B., p. 308.) 
"What are our college-halls, where hard questions "stump" 
the modest and "flunk" the Freshman, but baptisteries? 

(C. B., p. 334.) What " Tene manum" do you say? 

Well, be it so, we will leave the catalogue incomplete; only 
adding, when the theory of water dipping shall have brought 
itself into harmony with these classic baptisteries, "the con- 
clusion" will take care of those of the " lire-place, the stove, 
and the furnace." 

7. " Our great factories — Lowell, Lawrence, and Manches- 
ter — what baptizers !" These great establishments use alto- 
gether too " much water" for Classic Baptism to run them. 
If the Examiner will put on sufficiently good glasses he will 
see, that the conversion of cotton and wool, by machinery, 
into sheeting and broadcloth, neither changes the condition 
of its object by putting it within a physical element, nor does 
its work by an influence. They, therefore, do not belong to 
us. We remand these machinery Baptists back to the Ex- 
aminer's office. 

In a third article, the Examiner makes a draft for its criti- 
cisms upon 

THE NEW ENGLANDER. 

The first quotation has reference to figurative use. 

1. " The Greek word is used in many cases where there 
is no literal physical submergence. Mr. Dale has not over- 
looked these uses; he gives them a great deal of attention; 
but it is much to be regretted, and it is the great defect of 
the book, that his treatment of them is, in important respects, 
unnatural and arbitrary. It may be difficult to determine, in 
some cases, whether the primary meaning is wholly lost in 
the secondary, or whether something of the former remains 
to give picturesqueness and vivacity to the latter. But very 
few, we think, will agree with the author of this work in the 
extent to which he assumes a complete obliteration of pri- 
mary meaning and a consequent loss of figurative character." 



32 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

I have no novelties to offer on the subject of figurative 
language. I do not speak ex cathedra, but will take my place 
at the feet of any one who will give me instruction. The 
subject has its difficulties, as any one will feel who reflects 
upon it, or who will read those who have done so. But, as 
to this critic, there seems to be no principle separating us. 
It is a question of " extent" only. And if this be " the 
greatest defect of the book," then it will answer very well 
the purpose for which it w T as written. 

The principles which have governed my interpretation of 
language not used in physical relations, have been mainly 
these : 

1. Familiar and long-continued use wears out the original 
physical allusion. 

2. Where there is no evidence that the writer has the 
physical application in his mind, and a meaning is promptly 
and clearly attained without any such reference, that mean- 
ing should be regarded not as borrowed, but as its own ; not 
as figurative, but as literal, secondary. 

3. Long absolute use of a word, in like connection, com- 
municates to that word a specific meaning growing out of 
such relations. 

These principles are neither singular nor questionable. 
Campbell, the Principal of Marischal College, and regarded 
by Dr. Carson as the Prince of Ehetoricians, says : "And as 
to ordinary metaphors, or those which have already received 
the public sanction, and which are commonly very numerous 
in every tongue, the metaphorical meaning comes to be as 
really ascertained by custom in the particular language, as 
the original, or what is called the literal, meaning of the 
word. . . . One plain consequence of this doctrine is, that 
there will be in many words a transition, more or less rapid, 
from their being the figurative, to their being the proper 
signs of certain ideas. The transition from the figurative 
to the proper, in regard to such terms as are in daily use, is 
indeed inevitable, . . . They cannot be considered as genuine 
metaphors by the rhetorician. I have already assigned the 
reason. They have nothing of the effect of metaphor upon 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 83 

the hearer. On the contrary, like proper terms, they suggest 
directly to his mind, without the intervention of any image, 
the ideas which the speaker proposed to convey by them." 

Allow me to call especial attention to the following state- 
ment : "Again, it ought to be considered, that many words 
which must appear as tropical to a learner of a, distant age, 
who acquires the language by the help of grammars and dic- 
tionaries, may, through the imperceptible influence of use, 
have totally lost that appearance to the natives, who con- 
sidered them purely as proper terms." — Philosophy of RhcL, 
iii, 1. 

In writing Classic Baptism, I had not looked into Camp- 
bell ; but the views here presented are the same which rule 
there. I am not aware that they differ from other accredited 
w T riters. 

Dr. Carson has written a Treatise on the Figures of Speech, 
to supply " a deficiency in our language to this day." In 
that work he can find no writer, from Quintillian to Blair, 
to satisfy him as to the definition of Figure. Nor does he 
know any " author, ancient or modern, that has, with philo- 
sophical accuracy, drawn a line of distinction between the 
territories of common expression and those of figurative 
language." In his conception of metaphor, he declares his 
rejection of "the doctrine of Quintillian, Lord Kames, Dr. 
Campbell, and Dr. Blair." These writers all agree in the 
definition given by the Roman, — "Metaphor is a shorter 
similitude." Carson says, "Metaphor always asserts what 
is manifestly false. Metaphor asserts not only a falsehood, 
but an absurdity, — that one object is another." He insists 
upon it, that not a comparison, but a naked declaration, is 
made in the statement, "Achilles is a lion." He admits 
likeness to be the ground of the statement, and, therefore, 
objects to the metaphor, "Steep me in poverty to the very 
lips," saying, "It is here supposed that there is a likeness 
between being in great poverty and being steeped in water. 
"We cannot say that the likeness is faint, for there is no like- 
ness at all." Dr. Carson's peculiar ideas led him to put the 

3 



34 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

man spoken of, in water to the lips; which "being clone, he 
found no ground for the figure. And no wonder, for the 
figure is designed to develop the influence of 'poverty to a 
degree which shall he only short of destroying life, and to 
put a man in water to the lips produces no evil influence; 
but if you will put any absorbent into a liquid until it shall 
become, with a small exception, penetrated by its peculiari- 
ties, you will have the basis of the figure. We, then, come 
back to the man and poverty, and interpret the language as 
expressive of the influences of poverty in an extreme degree. 
For the same reason, Dr. C. carries a man baptized by ques- 
tions, or by sleep, or by wizard arts, into the water, with which 
such a one has nothing to do ; but the language is grounded 
in the resemblance of influence which may be found, not 
between the man bewildered, sleepy, or possessed with the devil, 
and a man under water, but between such a one as to the 
controlling influence to which he is subjected, and any ob- 
ject under the influence of a liquid by mersion. 

Against such interpretations of metaphor Classic Baptism 
protests. And it may be that it is the unreserved rejection 
of this " Achilles is a lion " metaphor, introducing ever more 
picture figures of dipping men, and cities, and continents, 
into water, which the New Englander has unwittingly termed 
" unnatural and arbitrary." 

I have spoken to this criticism, because while it is not 
essential to the issue, yet it has its interest and importance. 

I only add a word as to the " extent" to which the denial 
of figure is carried. 1. It embraces a single class of phrases 
in which a grammatical form (the dative without a preposi- 
tion), not found in the other class of baptisms, expresses 
agency, and in which there is no direct or incidental evi- 
dence of a physical scene being present to the mind of the 
writer. 2. The absolute use of the word in the same re- 
peated connection. This is the " extent" of m} T offending, 
no more. And a thorough examination of the merits of the 
case will, I think, make that extent a vanishing quantity. 

2. The Examiner introduces a second criticism from this 
periodical thus : " Eemarking on the assertion that any 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 35 

thorough change of condition is a baptism, the reviewer ob- 
serves" — 

Allow me to observe, that this statement makes a perfect 
metamorphosis of the statement, of Classic Baptism. It does 
not say that "any thorough change of condition is a bap- 
tism, " but, "Whatever" (act or influence) "is capable of 
thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition of any 
object, is capable of baptizing that object," (according to the 
nature of the case, if an " act," by putting it into the new 
condition of intusposition, with or without influence, or, if 
an " influence," by assimilating its condition to itself by a 
controlling power.) 

" Thorough change of condition" is a genus, with its 
species and their individuals. Classic Baptism does not treat 
of the genus, but of species, two, to wit, 1. Such thorough 
change of condition as results from the intusposition of ob- 
jects within physical elements; and, 2. Such thorough change 
of condition as results from a controlling assimilative influ- 
ence. Wine, opiate, grief, debt, excessive study, &c, &c, 
controlling the conditions of their objects, so as to bring 
them into a new condition, assimilated to their several in- 
fluences. 

The two statements, " any thorough change of condition," 
and the thorough change of condition of " any object," needs 
but to be made in order that their utter diversity may be ap- 
prehended. 

But it is this transference (inadvertent no doubt) of " any," 
from its true connection with " objects," to a false connec- 
tion with " condition," which makes the foundation for the 
"funny" baptism of the Examiner, and the erroneously con- 
ceived baptism of the Xew Englander, now to be noticed. 

" lie does not say, that a surgeon, who by a successful 
amputation saves a dying patient, baptizes that patient ; or 
that a whetstone, when it makes a dull knife into a sharp 
one, baptizes the knife; or that the sun, when it dries up a 
stream in summer, baptizes the stream. But we are left to 
suppose that he would regard these and others like these, as 
natural and appropriate expressions." 



36 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

If left, heretofore, to such inference, let me try to place an 
effectual guard against it hereafter. 

After what has been already said, this, perhaps, can be 
best done by a case. A man having a child sick with some 
internal disease, falls on a medical work treating on this sub- 
ject, and presenting this conclusion : "A sovereign remedy 
for this disease, is a thorough drenching with oil and rhu- 
barb. If restive under the application, he must be quieted by 
tightly twisting the upper lip and nose." Having read " the 
conclusion," and thus diplomatized for practice, he prepares 
a bucketful of the mixture, and at the bedside of his child 
prepares to " drench " him from head to foot. His restiveness 
is stilled by a tourniquet for lip and nose, but not without 
outcry. A passer by looks in, to whom the scene is ex- 
pounded through the disease and " the conclusion." The 
newcomer turns over the volume and exclaims, " Why, this 
book treats of the diseases of horses ! And it says, that ' to 
drench, is to empty a bottle of the stuff clown a horse's throat !' ,: 
[Exeunt omnes.) 

If now the Examiner and the New Englancler had not hur- 
ried into practice on a hasty preparation from " the conclu- 
sion," but had taken a full course of reading in the volume, 
they would have discovered, if not that " drench" is double- 
faced, yet, that " character, state, or condition," is more than 
bi-frons, and would have felt it desirable to conform their 
professional practice to that aspect presented in the book, 
and not have concluded that " he" meant child, instead of 
horse, and "drench" meant a clash' of a bucketful of the 
mixture, instead of the swallowing of a cathartic. 

If the machinery of Lowell, or the whetstone, or the knife 
of "the universal whittler" can put forth an "act" intro- 
ducing its object into a fluid element, then it can perform a 
baptism of the first class, changing condition by intusposition 
with or without influence; or, if they are able to send forth 
"influences" which shall pervade a bale of wool, a mower's 
scythe, Or a bit of shingle, thereby controlling or assimila- 
ting them to their own nature, then they can perform bap- 
tisms of the second class, changing condition by influence. 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 37 

" But all this is not stated in ' the conclusion.' " No more 
is horse stated in "the conclusion," and yet "he" is there. 
And, so, all this, and a great deal more, is in " the conclu- 
sion," for the Examiner, says, " It is the conclusion of 354 
pages of critical discussion." There are three hundred and 
fifty-four pages in " the conclusion." 

3. The Examiner says, "still more :" and quotes: " The 
English word immerse, according to our author, has nearly 
the same primary meaning as the Greek /3a-£>, and it ex- 
presses, as Mr. Dale says, ' thorough influence of any kind.'" 
Let the reader observe the words, " of any kind" and say 
whether we are not authorized to affirm, that " whatever is 
capable of thoroughly changing the character, state, or con- 
dition of any object, is capable of immersing that object; and 
by such change of character, state, or condition, does in fact 
immerse it." We do not see how this conclusion is to be 
avoided, though we fear the Baptist enemy may take ad- 
vantage of it to murmur with the little breath our author 
has left him : " Baptizing, then, is immersing, and immersing 
is baptizing." 

"When I read the statement, " Mr. Dale says immerse ex- 
presses influence of any kind. Let the reader observe 
the words of any hind" I said to myself, Well, you have 
nodded here, if not in the conclusion, and prepared myself 
to confess, with as good a grace as might be, a slip in the too 
great breadth of the language. However, on turning to C. 
B., p. 212, 1 read, " It expresses thorough influence of any kind ; 
the nature determined by the adjunct." I, then, smiled at my 
fears and sighed over the unreliability of quotations. And 
it becomes my turn to say, " Let the reader observe the 
words," the nature determined by the adjunct. Does not this 
limit, in the sharpest manner, " any kind of influence ?" It 
can develop no kind of influence, but that which belongs to 
its "adjunct." And it can have no "adjunct" but what use 
attaches to it. And use can attach no adjunct to it, but such 
as may receive appropriate development through the word. 

Suppose we laugh at use, and take some of the " funny" 



38 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

adjuncts to which we have been just introduced, and see how 
the " any kind" of influence is developed. " A dull knife 
immersed in a whetstone becomes very sharp." " A dying man 
immersed in a surgeon's scalpel springs into life." " A summer 
pool immersed in solar beams scuds through the sky." " A 
bag of wool immersed in a power-loom is influenced into broad- 
cloth !" Whetstones, scalpels, &c, &c, are "funny" adjuncts 

of /?«7rr iZ<D. 

I believe the statement may stand without the need of 
pleading for grace. Immerse must have a fit adjunct, and 
the adjunct determines the nature of the influence. 

It is farther to be observed, that the inference from the 
fact, that because immerse passes through the same general 
phases of usage, with panri^w, it must, therefore, have the same 
specific meanings, is not well grounded. 

Immerse has meanings which the Greek word has not ; 
and the Greek word has meanings which immerse has not. 

The grammatical combinations of the two words differ. 
In secondary use, immerse in is the almost invariable form ; 
while in secondary use, baptize by, is, so far as I remember, 
the absolutely invariable form. This diversity of form is 
indicative of diversity both of conception and of meaning. 
The difference of conception is ingrained in the terms. The 
difference of meaning is, sometimes, most obvious. "Im- 
mersed in business" indicates active, earnest, and constant 
engagement in business pursuits ; while " baptized by busi- 
ness" indicates an embarrassed condition resulting from mul- 
tiplied engagements. "Immersed in study " indicates thorough 
engagedness in student life; while " baptized by study" indi- 
cates mental prostration as the resultant condition of study. 
The inference, therefore, of the entire sameness of these 
words is not correct. 

But on the supposition that these words were fac similes 
in meaning, it w T ould hardly be worth while for "the enemy" 
to waste their " spent breath" in saying, " immersing is bap- 
tizing and baptizing is immersing," inasmuch as " immers- 
ing" must first have secured all the meanings shown by 
Classic Baptism to belong to baptizing, in which case the 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 39 

hard breathing would be wasted on the tautology, " baptizing 
is baptizing, and baptizing is baptizing." 

We cheerfully make over to "the Baptist enemy," (espe- 
cially as we have not heretofore had much opportunity to 
show them favor,) all right, title, and privilege, which may 
appertain to this discovery. 

THE RELIGIOUS HERALD. 

The book has been reviewed by the Religious Herald, in 
four consecutive numbers, embracing nine columns. I am 
indebted to its editors for the privilege of reading those 
articles, and it is with no ordinary pleasure that I say, that 
there is no discourteous word in those nine columns. They 
do not intimate that they have found any such word in Clas- 
sic Baptism. I have no such w 7 ords for Christian brethren. 
With those who use them, I wish to have nothing to do. If 
there are any whose errors need such chastening, I turn them 
over to the discipline of others. 

The Herald "declines to discuss the meaning of pami^o) as 
to its discriminating meaning, but limits itself to the argu- 
mentum ad hominem and reductio ad, absurdum." Any weapon, 
undipped in poisonous bile, w T hich an opponent thinks best 
adapted to his purpose, is welcome to the lists. 

1. The Herald says, "Baptist writers have maintained, in 
common with the most distinguished lexicographers and 
critics, that /?a-Tc'£w signifies dip, plunge, or immerse ; that it is 
a modal term, denoting a specific act, and not an effect re- 
sulting from an act: that it has the same meaning as i3di:Tw f 
except that of dye or smear." 

To sustain the lexicographical part of this statement, it is 
said, "Donnegan defines it: To immerse repeatedly into a 
liquid; to submerge, to soak thoroughly, to saturate; hence 
to drench with wine, metaphorically to confound totally." 

Does the Herald, in its gentle courtesy, mean that in ex- 
changing friendly buffets, we should, like Friar Tuck and 
Richard, take turn about, and therefore quote this definition 
to give me, too, a chance for the argumentum ad hominem$ 



40 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

The Herald says, through Donnegan, that fiarM^to means 
"to submerge," in which there is no modal act; yet it savs 
in proper person, it does mean " a modal act;" how is this? 
The Herald says, through Donnegan, pa-ri^io means "to soak 
thoroughly," in which there is no specific act; yet it says in 
proper person, it does mean "a specific act;" how is this? 
The Herald says, through Donnegan, fami'to means "to satu- 
rate," which expresses not an act, but an effect resulting 
from an act; yet it says in proper person, it does mean "an 
act, and not an etfect proceeding from an act;" how is this? 

Was the Herald napping when it wandered into the land 
of lexicography? 

Besides, Donnegan says, j3a7ZT^aj means, literally, "to drench 
with wine," (to make drunk), and also, literally, in secondary 
(metaphorical) use, "to confound totally." 

If a more suicidal blow was ever given to any cause than 
is given to the Baptist theory by the proffer of this defini- 
tion, I cannot conceive when, or where, or how, it was done. 

This definition suggests the farther remark: to look to 
dictionaries as authority to settle this controversy is folly. 

Will the Herald, or the Baptist world, accept the very first 
(which ought to be the very best) definition given by this, 
undoubtedly learned, lexicographer, to wit : "To immerse 
repeatedly into a liquid?" This definition, in common with 
other errors, as to the meaning of this word, is now rejected 
by scholars of every name. How idle the complaint, then, 
that Classic Baptism is not filled with lexicons. 

But Classic Baptism has not refused to consider lexical 
definitions because they were inimical. It is far otherwise. 

Every position of Classic Baptism can be deduced from this 
definition of Donnegan. 1. It utterly rejects modal act as 
the meaning of the word. 2. It shows, in the most absolute 
manner, the meaning to be, a condition effected by an un- 
expressed act. 3. Further, it sustains the distinctions made : 
(1.) " Iutusposition without influence." This is done by the 
naked submerge. (2.) " Iutusposition with influence." This 
is expressed by to saturate. (3.) " Intusposition for influence." 
This is evidently in to soak thoroughly. (4.) "Influence with- 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 41 

out intusposition." This is, as clearly, in to drench (make 
drunk) with wine. And (5.) " Influence without intusposition, 
in the case of elements not physical." This is exemplified 
by a particular case, to confound totally ; which is undoubtedly 
derived from the case of the youth mentioned in Classic 
Baptism (p. 334), who was baptized, bewildered, " totally 
confounded " by questions. Donriegan and Classic Baptism 
are in full accord. It is most unaccountable that any one 
should say, that the Baptist theory of this word and lexical 
definitions agree together. And it is no less groundless to 
say, that "the views of Classic Baptism are not less opposed 
to those of lexicographers than they are opposed to those of 
Baptists." 

But the special reason for this quotation from the Herald, 
is, that the views held by Baptists as to the meaning of this 
word, (" one meaning, modal term, specific act, same as fid-rcta), 
dyeing excepted,") may be before us on the high authority 
of the Herald ; for respondents are already beginning to deny 
that such views are held by our Baptist friends. They feel 
their old ground slipping from under them, and they are 
casting about for some surer resting-place. 

2. The argumentum ad hominem. — This is not formally stated, 
but we are left to conclude, from a supposed warrant in the 
exhibited use of immerse, that this word has only a literal, 
primary meaning, and from its (supposed) stated relation to 
baptize, farther to conclude, that baptize has but one, literal, 
primary meaning throughout its usage. 

I would like to state the case in all its strength, but, really, 
when I attempt to raise it out of the types, it so falls to pieces 
that I am embarrassed. 

"Mr. Dale gives numerous instances of the figurative use 
of baptize — ' baptized by evils, by anger, by misfortune, by 
wine, by taxes, by midnight, &c.' — In these passages there 
is not a new meaning assigned to the word, but simply a 
figurative use of the term, in which it derives all its perti- 
nency and force from the literal and well-known import. . . . 
Baptize and immerse are similar terms. Every child knows 



42 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

that immerse means to put into or under a fluid, and it is im- 
possible by any sophistry or figurative meanings to blind his 
understanding on the subject. The same sophistry which 
shows that baptism, mersion, may be effected" (in unphysi- 
cal matters) " without putting under a fluid, would show that 
immersion may be effected"* (in unphysieal matters) " with- 
out putting under a fluid; while every man, woman, and 
child in the land, knows immersion means to put under 
fluid,'" (in physical elements.) 

The language of the Herald is given in a condensed form, 
and the enclosed words are introduced in order to show, that 
the reasoning breaks down through the admixture of things 
unphysieal and physical. 

To show that " immerse undergoes no change of meaning," 
the following extracts from Classic Baptism are made : 

" ' The Secretary of War is immersed in business; immersed 
in traffic; immersed in calculations; immersed in politics; 
immersed among worm-eaten folios;' — in these passages the 
word immerse does not change its meaning. It has reference, 
in every case, to its settled import. There is a resemblance 
between the condition of an object placed within or under a 
fluid, and that of the persons said in the above quotations to 
be immersed. Whether the person using the term figura- 
tively thinks of its tropical " (literal?) " sense, is of no conse- 
quence; the analogy is the ground of its use in this applica- 
tion. Does this figurative use of the word cast any doubt 
on its meaning " (to put in or under a fluid) ? " Not the 
slightest." 

The pointblank contradiction in this language is so patent, 
that it is truly remarkable that it should have escaped the 
notice of the Herald. We are first told, that " in these pas- 
sages immerse does not change its meaning," i. e., it retains 
its literal meaning to put in or under, Next we are told, " it 
has reference to its settled import." Is a " reference" to a 
thing the same as the thing itself? And, again, we are 
told that there is a " resemblance" between, &c. How does 
the resemblance of one thing to another thing make it that 
thing, or is it consistent with being that thing ? In John 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 43 

Smith, the son, there may be a " reference" to John Smith, 
the father, because his name is taken from him. But this 
does not make John Smith, the sou, John Smith, the father. 
There may be a " resemblance " between these parties, in 
feature, form, size, gait, character, and yet John Smith, the 
son, is another person from John Smith, the father. Now, 
there may be a " reference*" and a " resemblance," between 
immerse figurative and immerse literal, and they not be the 
same thing; but, on the contrary, because there is a " refer- 
ence," and a " resemblance," their distinct existence and 
character is proven beyond all controversy. 

AVe are farther told, that " it is of no consequence whether 
the person using the term figuratively thinks of its tropical" 
(literal) " sense; the analogy is the ground of its use." But 
if the literal sense (" tropical," I presume, has slipped in 
through inadvertence, and would settle the matter by the 
admission of a "turned" sense) is not in the mind of the 
speaker or writer, then " the ground of the analogy " has 
vanished, and the residuum left behind is the new meaning 
cut loose from its literal relationship. 

In conformity with this, all writers on figurative language 
unite in saying, that when the literal use ceases to find any 
place in the mind, the figurative use has secured a meaning 
of its own, and thenceforth ceases to be properly designated 
as figure. Take this illustration : A carpenter in my em- 
ploy says he has been putting a bonnet over my parlor win- 
dow. The ground of this use is obvious; but that ground 
had utterly slipped from out of the mind of this uneducated 
mechanic, and with him, in carpentry, "bonnet" meant di- 
rectly, and of its own proper force, a ivooden covering to protect 
a window from, sun and ram. 

But the Herald thinks that shame is cast on this doctrine, 
by every child who knows that immerse has but one literal 
meaning, and that no sophistry can blind his understanding. 

Let us experiment with this child. A parent says to him, 
" My child, you are entering upon your education, and I 
wish you to be immersed in your books." On going, sub- 
sequently, to this student's room, and calling for him, he is 



44 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

answered from " in and under" spelling books, geographies, 
grammars, dictionaries, and systems of rhetoric, logic, and 
philosophy, " Here I am, father." On being asked what he 
is doing there, he replies, from out of his in-under immer- 
sion, " Yon wished me to be ' immersed in my books,' and 
here I am in under the pile." " But, my child, do you not 
know that ' immersed in books 9 means to be thoroughly en- 
gaged in their study?" ".Oh no, sir! Every child knows 
that immerse means put in, under, and nothing else; for I 
read it in the Herald, and ' no sophistry can blind my under- 
standing.' " So much for " child" knowledge. 

Another test may be applied to the position of the Herald, 
that immerse, in these relations, undergoes no change of 
meaning. It is this : the meaning of a word can always be 
intelligibly substituted, in every use of that word, for the 
word itself. 

Apply this test: " immersed in =put in or under" business, 
traffic, calculations, politics, worm-eaten folios, &c, &c. Does 
it answer ? Is it possible in fact ? Is it conceivable in imagi- 
nation ? Try the baptisms by the same test : " baptized by = 
thoroughly subject to the influence of evil, anger, misfortune, 
wine, taxes, midnight," &c, &c. Could adaptation be more 
perfect? 

In this interpretation the physical investiture is rejected, 
(as not having the matter of "reference" or "resemblance,") 
and thorough subjection to influence, which has the needed " re- 
semblance," and is the effect of such investiture, is taken. 

To insist that a word, which has been used in one class 
of relations, and has secured a meaning from use in such 
relations, must carry that meaning into essentially different 
relations, and maintain it there unchanged by new influences, 
is to war against the philosophy of language, against facts 
in every department of the physical, intellectual, moral, and 
social world, and is, on its face, absurd. 

A hundred stones thrown together make, in such relation, 
a pile. The same stones laid in consecutive order make, in 
such relation, a line. When builded together in a half circle 
they make, in such relation, an arch. 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 45 

The digits, without relation to each other, have an in* 
dependent value, which value is immediately changed on 
entering into arithmetical relations. A cipher, which is a 
nothing, independently, becomes of prodigious value on en- 
tering into such relations. It converts a unit (1) into a mil- 
lion (1,000,000). So, by the unity of relationship established 
by such bonds as these— (3+3) = 6; (3— 3) = 0; (3x3) = 9; 
(3-r-3) = l — the same characters, which have a settled inde- 
pendent value, become utterly and diversely changed. 

In like manner, every vowel, which has an independent 
value, has that value changed by entering into relation with 
other letters, as mar, map, man, mate, &c. So, letters, forming 
words expressive of thought, by a change of relation among 
themselves, change entirely the thought, e. g., the same let- 
ters which, in a certain relation, express time, in another re- 
lation express emit, and in another item, and in another mite, 
and in another I met, and in yet another me it. A simple 
change of relation produces all these changes of thought. 

The same is true in the relation of words. Some of these 
relations are of simple order, as " he is here," or " here he 
is," without change of thought; some involve a change in 
grammatical construction, as " the boy ate the pig," and 
"the pig ate the boy;" some relations of words are organic, 
and the several words cannot be interpreted, except in their 
organic relations to each other, without destroying the life, 
which is the result of the union. 

If a child asks, What is light ? and is pointed to the rain- 
bow and told, " Light is red, and orange, and yellow, and 
green, and blue, and indigo, and violet," has he received a 
truthful answer ? Xo. Light is neither red, nor orange, 
nor yellow, nor green, nor blue, nor indigo, nor violet; nor 
is it red, and orange, and yellow, and green, and blue, and 
indigo, and violet; but it is a new result from the interac- 
tion of these colors when placed in certain relations to each 
other; each communicating and receiving a modifying in- 
fluence. So it is with words in organic thought-relations. 
Independent life is sacrificed to a new organic life. 

In the words — "the entire crew were baptized" — there is 



46 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

no definite, common thought-life. Phraseological combina- 
tions of words must not be interpreted disjunctly, but con- 
junctly. You may galvanize the article and adjective, noun 
and verb, and you will get no answer. They are dead as to 
all power to utter any complete thought. It is only the man 
who knows what " sod" means, because he has " dug sods 
many a time," that will think otherwise. The sentence must 
be vitalized by union with an adjunct to the verb. If that 
adjunct should be — by a destructive tempest, then we will have 
a fearful life imparted to the words. If it should be — by ex- 
cessive wine-drinking, then we should have a very shameful 
life communicated to them. But whether fearful or shame- 
ful, " baptized" cannot be interpreted disjunctly, but must 
retain its organic union with and receive its life from its 
adjunct, unless we would stumble over " Jacob sod pottage," 
or " hinder the resurrection." 

The Herald will, I trust, perceive that the condemnatory 
ad hominem, drawn from the representation made by Classic 
Baptism of baptize and immerse, has not hurt, and I am sure 
its esteemed editors will accept the rebounding blow in all 
good nature. 

3. The argumentum ad absurdum. — The ad absurdum part 
of the review relates to "the conclusion." It belongs to the 
same class with the Lowell machinery and whetstone. To 
these are, however, added "birth" and "a dose of ipecac;" 
there is not added a big pinch of snuff , nor stumping a sore toe. 
Enough has been said of this " absurdity," (mine or theirs,) 
and I add no more. 

I must notice, however, one remarkable error in this con- 
nection. It is the idea that literal baptisms are limited to 
those mentioned on page 235, and are " without influence." 
The literal baptisms extend through the fifty following pages, 
and these are all with influence. On this error is based the 
more important one, " We suppose the author ascribes the 
power of ' thoroughly changing the character, state, or con- 
dition of an object,' not to literal, but to figurative baptism." 
This is very far from being the case. The conclusion em- 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 47 

braces both the acts of literal baptism and the influences of 
figurative baptism. All literal, primary baptisms change the 
condition of their objects by placing them in a condition 
of intusposition. Of these baptisms there are two classes : 
(1.) Such as are not influenced by their intusposition, as a 
rock. (2.) Such as, in addition to simple intusposition, also, 
receive influence therefrom, as a sponge, &c. 

It is on this latter class of literal baptisms, and, specifically, 
on the thorough influence proceeding from them, that bap- 
tisms of thorough change of condition effected by influence 
without intusposition, are grounded. 

Slips like this, though on a large scale, are readily ac- 
counted for by the weekly recurring editorial baptism. 

4. Concessions. — 1. " It is conceded that, if c a state of puri- 
fication' is baptism, then it is baptism whether induced by 
sprinkling, magnetism, fire, or anything else. But if it be 
so, it does not follow that sprinkling is baptism. Baptism, 
in the case supposed, denotes the effect of sprinkling and not 
the sprinkling itself." 

All of which is most orthodox and quite to the purpose. 

2. "It is conceded that, figuratively, baptism was employed 
by Greok authors to denote any strong controlling influence 
by which an object was mersed or whelmed ; or in which 
there was a resemblance between the object under such in- 
fluence and an object baptized, mersed, intusposed. It does 
not follow, that because an object under a controlling, trans- 
forming, overwhelming influence is said to be baptized, that 
every influence that changes * character, state, or condition,' 
baptizes it." 

Thank you kindly for this truly welcome aid and comfort. 
To what class of influences does the "emetic" belong? 

3. "It is conceded that the Greeks called drunkenness bap- 
tism; and in this baptism there was no envelopment. An 
intoxicated man was baptized by wine. It was not the 
drinking of wine, nor the operation of it, but the condition — 
the intoxication resulting from its use — that was called the 
baptism." 



48 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

If the author of Classic Baptism be not content with these 
sweeping concessions, he must be one of the hardest of men 
to please. They cover, directly or indirectly, all that Classic 
Baptism was written to establish, and the Baptist theory is, 
by them, numbered among the things that were. 

The Herald concludes, " We can only promise, that should 
life, strength, and opportunity be allowed us, and should we 
be able to procure the forthcoming volumes, we will give 
them a candid notice. Here, for the present, we take re- 
spectful leave of Mr. Dale." 

THE BAPTIST QUARTERLY. 

The Baptist Quarterly for April, 1869, contains an article 
(27 pp.) entitled "Dale's Classic Baptism. By Prof. A. C. 
Kendrick, D.D., Rochester, New York." 

There may be some who would wish to know what would 
be said from such a quarter. A theological seminary and 
its professorate, are naturally suggestive of a pure and loving 
atmosphere, while a Quarterly lifts up the thoughts to what 
is weighty with truth and dignified in bearing. How the 
practical outworking of things harmonizes with their popu- 
lar estimation, may be learned from the following 

QUOTATIONS. 

" Philological thimble-rigging, tricks of legerdemain, dex- 
terous, or would-be dexterous manipulation, — of these feats 
of petty sleight of hand Mr. Dale's book is full; an elaborate 
and persistent effort to trick fiaicTtZat out of its honest mean- 
ing. — Without learning, without philosophy, and without can- 
dor. — As ignorant as if he lived in another planet. — Either 
ignorance scarcely less than disgraceful, or something less 
complimentary. — The slenderest acquaintance with critics 
and commentators. — As barren verbal criticism as it was ever 
our misfortune to read, or any sensible man to write. — Such 
pitiful drivel, and the book is plethoric with it. — Phastasma- 
goria of contradictions. — Strange compound of folly and ir- 
reverence. — Incredible puerility. — Is there another living 
man out of the idiot's asylum. — Impertinent and insulting. — 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 49 

Spare his scoffings. — Has not taken a single honest step. — 
Largely false and scientifically worthless. — Pure superfluity 
and grand impertinence. — Humanity has stood him instead 
of knowledge. — Sense or nonsense. — Verbal manipulations. 
— Skilful avoidance of correctness, elegance, and sense. — By 
such a one as Mr. Dale. — Descend a great many degrees 
before getting near the level of the expounder of Classic 
Baptism. — A man who has neither taste nor scholarship. — 
Dreary and barren criticism. — His feeble ridicule recoils on 
the captious critic. — Monstrous doctrine. — An absurdity too 
great to need a moment's argumentation. — Uniform render- 
ing intentionally false, or intentionally unmeaning. — The 
doctrine is unphilosophical and false. — A spirit of narrow 
and bitter partisanship. — A scholarly attitude is apparently 
beyond the conception of Mr. Dale. — His book one half 
false, one half irrelevant. — Partly false and partly nonsense. 
— With his accustomed insolence" 

It is not necessary to eat an entire joint of meat to learn 
whether it is tainted or not. These morceaux are enough 
to test the quality of this "joint." Boiled down they leave 
this twofold residuum : 1. Mr. Dale is a fool. 2. His book 
is a lie. 

QUOTATIONS IN ANOTHER DIRECTION. 

"Nobody doubts that pamu* may mean to dip. Bo.-t£(d be- 
came naturally applied ordinarily to immersions of a more 
formal and longer character, while /?a'--a> ordinarily denoted 
the lighter and the shorter. — Thus arose the distinction sug- 
gested by Dr. Dagg, giving a partial foundation for the 
dogma of Mr. Dale. — We repeat, none will deny the partial 
truth of Mr. Dale's distinction. — The submersion of wine 
(no matter hoiv, by pouring, if Mr. Dale pleases) in sea-water. 
— It is not a dipping that our Lord instituted. — He did not 
command to put people into the water and take them out again, 
but to put them under the water. We repeat, with emphasis, 
for the consideration of our Baptist brethren : Christian bap- 
tism is no mere literal and senseless "dipping," assuring the 



50 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

frightened candidate of a safe exit from the water. — Grant- 
ing that ftdrtru) always engages to take its suhject out of the 
water (which we do not believe) and that /SaTzr^oj never does 
engage to take its subject out of the water, (which we readily 
admit.) — "We let panriZta take us into the water, and can trust 
to men's instinctive love of life, their common sense, their 
power of volition and normal muscular action, to briDg them 
safely out. — The law of God in Revelation sends the Baptist 
clown into the waters of immersion; when it is accomplished, 
the equally imperative law of God in nature brings him safely 
out." 

Subjecting these passages to a sublimation we get this 
result : 

1. " There is an annoying streak of truth (got in there, 
somehow, by the help of the devil, or of Dr. Dagg), running 
through 'that lie.'" 

2. " Make all haste to square up your notions of baptism 
by this streak of truth. Baptist brethren ! I warn you, once 
and again, that you must get rid of dip. Dip puts into the 
water and takes out; baptize never takes out of the water what 
it once puts in. Abandon dipping and go down under the 
water, trusting to ' nature and muscle' to bring you out. 
Then, when ' this fool ' comes along with his thunder we will 
be ready for him." 

One of my theological professors, with whom a universal 
courtesy was as the breath of his life, once said to me: " If 
the devil were to pass me and salute me courteously, I would 
courteously return the salute." He did not say, that if the 
devil came with horns down, and tail up, and hoof stamping, 
and breath sulphurous, that he would have any salutation 
for him. I suppose he would get out of his way. I do not 
know that I can do better than to follow his example. I 
have, therefore, no salutation for the " Professor of the Bap- 
tist Theological Seminary, of Rochester, ^N~ew York," (not 
even " a railing accusation,") but proceed to get out of his 
way. 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 51 

Having, therefore, no further need for this double distil- 
lation of " Dale's Classic Baptism, by A. C. Kendrick, D.D., 
Professor of Greek, Baptist Theological Seminary, Boch es- 
ter, Xew York, — Philadelphia, American Baptist Publica- 
tion Society, 530 Arch Street," I make it over, all and par- 
ticular, to whom it may concern, not forgetting, in especial, 
"his accustomed insolence." 

CRITICISMS FOUNDED IN MISCONCEPTION. 

Any one who will look through the criticisms now pre- 
sented, will perceive, that, so far as they relate to any mate- 
rial point, they are directed not against the positions of 
Classic Baptism, but against something else widely different 
from them. 

There are controversial artifices for converting granite ob- 
stacles into straw figments; but I do not believe that they 
have been used in this case. Nor will I say, that the miscon- 
ception is due wholly to others, and in no wise to myself; but 
to whomsoever it may belong, it is desirable that all ground 
for its continuance should, if possible, be removed. Let me, 
then, advert to the more important points, and indicate their 
true import. 

1. It is objected, that ftaxrtZaj is made to express condition 
only, all act being eliminated. 

The true position as taken is, the word expresses condition 
of intusposition, involving some act adequate for its accom- 
plishment, but not expressing or requiring any particular 
form, of act. And in this there is no singularity. It is com- 
mon to all words of the same class. 

2. It is objected, that one word has been used to translate 
fiaxTiZot throughout, and therefore, it must have one meaning. 

The truth is, that one word is used in all cases where the 
one Greek word is used, not as its translation, but as its rep- 
resentative. It being distinctly stated, that neither this word 
(merse), nor any other word in the English language, can, in 
one meaning, translate the Greek word ; that this will be 
manifest to every reader, who will, therefore, be required to 
modify the meaning of this one word to meet the exigency 



52 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

of the passage, and so, be made to feel that the one Greek 
word has, in usage, undergone a correspondent change. It 
was farther stated, that the unusual word " merse" was taken, 
because it would be more readily susceptible of such modi- 
fications than any word already familiar in a fixed meaning. 
(See pp. 129-134, C. B.) 

3. It is objected, that Classic Baptism disregards the gene- 
rally received interpretation of language, by assigning a di- 
rect meaning to phraseology, which should be understood 
figuratively. 

The objection is groundless. There is no departure from 
the principles laid down by accredited writers on figurative 
language. Metaphorical language is as truly subject to laws 
and interpretation as is literal language. It has, also, a 
meaning as distinct, and as susceptible of development, as 
language used in physical relations. 

In a metaphor there is an untruth stated according to a 
purely disjunct verbal interpretation. But this mode of in- 
terpretation is as false as is the conception deduced- by its 
operation. " Achilles is a lion," is an untrue statement only 
under an erroneous interpretation. Every metaphor is self- 
corrective in its terms. Achilles and lion qualify each other. 
In their relation as the utterance of a sane man to sane men, 
they say, — The meaning is not that a man is a wild beast; 
but that there is something in this peerless warrior, which 
resembles something in this king of the forest; which thing 
you are to find out and receive as the meaning designed to 
be conveyed by this language. In the metaphor, " Great 
Britain has a watery bulwark ; " there is an inconsistency 
between "water" and "bulwark" interpreted independently; 
but qualified by their relation to Great Britain in its island 
character, the upraised stone or earth disappears from bul- 
wark, and the residual idea of protection remains, and assim- 
ilates with flowing water. And the meaning of the phrase is, 
and is nothing else, than that Great Britain has a protection 
in its surrounding seas. 

In such language the mind finds pleasure in the boldness 
of the statement, in being aroused to consider and deduce 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 53 

the truth designed, latent amid incongruities, in its dis- 
covery of that sought for, and with its adaptation to the end 
required. 

There is a conundrum character belonging to the metaphor, 
which the hearer or reader is called upon to solve. It may be 
put in this form : " "Why is Achilles like a lion ? " " Why 
may Great Britain be said to have a watery bulwark ? " 
" Why is the London Times the thunderer ? " But as every 
conundrum has a definite solution which is its meaning, so, 
every metaphor has its solution and definite meaning, which 
cannot be allowed to evaporate in undefined shadow, or to 
speak erroneously under a mistaken interpretation. Every 
metaphor presents to us terms between which there are many 
incongruities, and one (at least) point of resemblance. The 
incongruities are to be thrown aside as nothing to the pur- 
pose ; and the resemblance, alone, to be taken as the residual 
grain of gold required. 

Classic Baptism (pp. 294, 299), refers to the following cases 
of baptism : " Cnemon, perceiving that he was deeply grieved 
and baptized by the calamity, and fearing lest he may do 
himself some injury, removes the sword privately." "The 
relation of your wanderings, often postponed, as you know, 
because the casualties still baptized you, you could not keep 
for a better time than the present." 

The objectors say, that these baptisms must be interpreted 
as figure. Well, Classic Baptism does not say, that they 
may not be so interpreted, in a common sense way. Its 
denial is, that any sound interpretation will put these parties 
under water in fact or in figure. It does not deny, that the 
true meaning of the passage may be reached by tracing a 
resemblance in some respect, between the condition of an 
object induced by a state of mersion, and the condition of 
these persons induced by calamity and casualty. 

But in any interpretation, it must be noted at the outset, 
that these baptized conditions were not transient, but pro- 
tracted through days, weeks, or months. This settles the 
matter as to these living men being regarded as being, 
through these periods, under water, oil, milk, blood, or marsh- 



54 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

mud. The resemblance is between something in their con- 
dition not thus covered, and something in the condition of 
an object which is so covered. A farther point settled is, 
that the resemblance is not to the covered condition of a bap- 
tized object, for there is no such existent condition effected 
by calamity. The resemblance, then, must be sought in some 
effect produced by a covered condition, and some effect pro- 
duced in the condition of one affected by calamity. 

Eow, the specific effects of a covered condition in water, 
oil, milk, blood, marsh-mud, &c, are various; and as the 
metaphorical condition is one, the resemblance cannot be to 
all. It is just as clear, that the reference cannot be to any 
specific influence ; because there is no reference to one more 
than to another. Neither can the resemblance be to that 
effect which is common to them all, namely, the suffocation 
of a human being by protracted mersion ; for there is no cor- 
responding suffocation to which such effect should be like. 

There is but one other point in which fluids, semi-fluids, 
and readily penetrable substances, unite in common effect 
upon enclosed objects, and. that is a controlling influence 
stripped of specialty. Such an effect finds its correspond- 
ence in the completest manner in both parties spoken of by 
Heliodorus. They have long been in a condition induced by 
the complete influence of " calamity" and " casualty." And 
baptize is not only not used to express a covered condition, 
real or imaginary, on the part of these sufferers, but it is 
not used to express the covered condition of the object; the 
sentiment of the metaphor has nothing to do with covering, 
but with the effect resulting from such covering. 

Thus, if this phraseology be treated as designed figure, we 
are compelled to cast away everything but controlling influ- 
ence. 

Whether it ought to be so treated, or whether it should be 
interpreted as directly expressive of influence, is another 
question. 

Some might choose to interpret as metaphor the state- 
ments, " A people enlightened by education are capable of self- 
government/' " Established in rectitude by Christianity, they 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 5D 

live in peace.'' But, I presume, there are not many who 
would quarrel with those who should prefer to say, metaphor 
has vanished from such language; and it conveys its senti- 
ment not through a resemblance to sunlight, or a building 
founded on a rock, but makes direct announcement of the 
influences of education and Christianity. 

There is no more ground for complaint, when it is de- 
clared, " baptized by calamity," and "by casualty," &c. &c, 
express directly, and not merely through resemblance, their 
legitimate influence. 

These were every-day expressions among the Greeks, and 
we must remember, "There is very little, comparatively, of 
energy produced by any metaphor that is in common use, 
and already familiar to the hearer. Indeed, what were origi- 
nally the boldest metaphors, are become, by long use, virtu- 
ally, proper terms." (Whately, Rhetoric, p. 195.) "And as 
to ordinary metaphors, and which are commonly very numer- 
ous in every tongue, the metaphorical meaning comes to be as 
really ascertained b} T custom in the particular language, as 
the original, or what is called the literal, meaning of the 
word." "They have nothing of the effect of metaphor upon 
the hearer. On the contrary, they suggest, like proper terms, 
directly to the mind, without the intervention of any image, the 
ideas which the speaker intended to convey by them." " The 
invariable effect of very frequent use being to convert the 
metaphorical into a proper meaning." (Campbell, Philosophy 
of Rhetoric, pp. 344, 348.) Campbell farther states, (p. 346,) 
"It is very remarkable, that the usages in different languages 
differ, insomuch that the same trope will suggest opposite 
ideas in different tongues." JSTow, both the verbal form and 
thought of the metaphor under consideration differs in the 
Greek and English languages. "Immersed in calamity" 
makes calamity the element and inness the basis of the 
thought; but "baptized by calamity," makes calamity the 
agency and controlling power the basis of the sentiment. 
Inness is neither expressed nor necessarily implied. "Bap- 
tized in a storm" denotes destruction during the continuance 
of a storm; "baptized by a storm" denotes the destructive 



56 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

power of the storm. " Jotapata baptized in the departure of 
Josephus" is nonsense; "baptized by the departure of Jose- 
phus" expresses the ruinous influence consequent on his de- 
parture. The English does not use " immersed by calamity " to 
denote the agency of calamity, but overwhelmed by. Nor does 
it say " immersed into calamity ; " m-mersed expresses position, 
into expresses movement. Their conjunction would be incon- 
gruous. The English use of immerse and the Greek usage of 
j3aT7z£u) are by no means parallel, and "the trope founded on 
these words has essential difference in the different tongues." 

The objection that novelty of principle in the interpreta- 
tion of figurative language has been introduced into Classic 
Baptism, is surely without any just foundation. 

4. It is objected that "the conclusion " of Classic Baptism 
is too broad ; that there are many things which exert a com- 
plete influence in changing condition which could not, prop- 
erly, be said to baptize. 

This objection is grounded both in a failure of compre- 
hension and of discrimination. 

There has been a failure to comprehend both acts and in- 
fluences as causative of changes of condition, and a failure 
to discriminate between the characteristic differences in the 
changed conditions, effected, respectively, by act and influ- 
ence. 

The only change of condition effected by " act," with which 
Classic Baptism has anything to do, is that resulting from 
an object being intusposed within some readily penetrable 
medium. 

If, now, the act of sharpening a knife by a whetstone 
changes the condition of the knife by putting it under the water; 
or if a power-loom, by its action, puts a bale of cotton into the 
mill-dam, then they will come within the range of the " con- 
clusion," and may be employed to test its correctness; but 
not till then. 

In like manner "the influences" of Classic Baptism have 
their limitation. They are not only complete in their con- 
trolling power, but they assimilate the condition of the bap- 
tized object to their own peculiarities. Thus, an intoxicat- 



BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 57 

ing influence produces an intoxicated condition ; a soporific 
influence produces a soporific condition; a stupefying influ- 
ence produces a stupefied condition; an oppressive influence 
produces an oppressed condition. 

If, now, the amputating knife influences the condition of 
the patient, assimilating it to the characteristics of ike cutting steel, 
then it may be employed to test the doctrine whether all in- 
fluences, like those of which Classic Baptism treats, may be 
justly said to baptize. 

Every conclusion should be broad enough to include all 
the particulars from which it is deduced; it should not be 
expected to have greater breadth. 

The brevity with which the conclusion of Classic Baptism 
is stated might render it obscure, or apparently erroneous, 
to one who had not thoughtfully read the volume on which 
that conclusion rests ; but, none others, I think, would find 
any embarrassment in its statement. 

It might be amplified thus: "Whatever act is capable of 
thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition, of any 
object, by placing it in a state of 'physical miusposition, is capable 
of baptizing that object; and whatever influence is capable of 
thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition, of 
any object, by pervading it and making it subject to its own charac- 
teristic, is capable of baptizing that object; and by such 
changes of character, state, or condition, these acts and influ- 
ences do, in fact, baptize their objects." 

There is nothing in this more amplified form, other than 
what was in contemplation when the briefer form was written, 
and which is stated everywhere in the preceding pages of the 
volume. 

As there are "acts" which change the condition of their 
objects without changing it in that way here contemplated, 
to wit, by placing them in intusposition, and are, therefore, 
excluded from consideration; so, there are "influences" 
which change condition, but not after the manner of those 
with which we have here to do, and are therefore excluded, 
in like manner. 



58 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

All the objections offered against the positions and con- 
clusions of Classic Baptism have, now, been presented and 
considered. 

In view of them, we are fully warranted in concluding, 
that those positions and conclusions are substantially correct. 

By them we are led to view the word under an essentially 
different aspect from which it has, heretofore, been usually 
considered. Between a word which is expressive of the ex- 
ecution of the mere form of a transitory act, and a word 
which is expressive of a condition characterized by complete- 
ness of envelopment, fulness of influence, and without limi- 
tation of continuance, there must be the broadest distinction, 
not only in primary import, but also in development. 

It has appeared to me to be all-essential, that we should 
reach clearness of views as to the essential character of the 
disputed word when used in the classics, before entering 
upon its usage within the sphere of revealed religion. 

This, now, has been measurably accomplished. We will, 
therefore, proceed to follow the word among Jewish writers, 
and among Jewish ceremonials, to note any modifications 
which it may undergo, either by limitation, amplification, or 
specific application. 

The separate examination of each case of baptism will 
necessarily involve a frequent reference to the same prin- 
ciples of exposition and of appeal to the same illustrative 
facts. There are advantages, however, in this course which 
greatly counterbalance the disadvantages. 

The quotations of Patristic writers are made, almost with- 
out exception, from the latest Paris edition, published under 
the editorial charge of the Abbe Migne\ 

The quotations are limited, with rare exceptions, to writers 
of the first four centuries. 



JEWISH WRITERS. 



(69) 



JOSEPHUS-PHILO-SON OF SIRACH. 



Jewish writers exhibit the most thorough knowledge 
of, and the most entire familiarity with, the Greek word 
BAIlTfZQ. 

It is not a little remarkable, considering the limited ex- 
tent of their writings, that they should furnish an illustra- 
tion of every phase of usage presented by the Classic Greek 
writers. 

With this complete mastery of the word, we may feel the 
most entire confidence that, if they carry the word into any 
field of thought unknown to the Classics, any such new 
usage or application will be found to be in perfect harmony 
with the fundamental character of the word. 

In order that the identity of conception and usage, as to 
this word, by Jew and Greek, may be at once obvious, the 
same classification of passages will be made now, as that 
which was presented in Classic Baptism. 

BAUTIZQ. 

INTUSPOSITION WITHOUT INFLUENCE. 

PRIMARY USE. 

Trjv re dt^tav avareivaq, wq /irj8i>a XaOs.lv, oXov efc rrjV iaurob apayr^v 
IfianTias to £i<poq. 

And stretching out his right hand, so as to escape notice by 
none, he mersed the entire sword into his throat. 

Josephus, Jewish War, ii, 18. 

This is the case of Simon, a distinguished Jew, who, after 
he had slain his parents, wife, and children, to prevent their 

(61 ) 



62 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

falling into the power of the enemy, committed suicide. All 
the facts of the case, the act performed, and the issue reached, 
are well known. 

In what aspect is ^a-Kri^a presented ? Does it announce 
the performance of a definite, modal act ? Dr. Conant says 
yes, and translates plunge. This translation his friend Booth 
would probably accept without feeling that, thereby, " his 
sentiments were made ridiculous." And he would be right. 
Baptist sentiments are not made " ridiculous " by speaking 
of a sword " plunged," instead of a sword " mersed." But 
the difficulty with "Baptist sentiments" is, that when they 
once translate a word which has but " one meaning through 
all Greek literature" by " plunge," its ghost will ever re- 
turn, unbidden, to trouble them. And this is not only vex- 
atious, but, as the venerable Booth declares, makes their 
sentiments "ridiculous." It is, also, obvious that, while 
" plunge " very properly represents the act performed in this 
case, it does not represent ^ami^o) ; for if Simon had, after 
the example of Saul, fixed the hilt of his sword upon the 
ground, and fallen upon it, the sword would have been equally 
baptized — mersed; but the act of "plunging" would have 
wholly disappeared, and, according to Baptist translation, 
pa-nri^a) would denote the definite act " fall upon." In fact, 
it expresses neither ; while it accepts the one, or the other, 
or a score beside, as equally competent to meet its demand 
for a state of intusposition for its object. 

It is no less obvious, that this intusposition is without in- 
fluence upon the sword. Simon is slain; the sword is unaf- 
fected. "Whether the sword be sheathed in Simon's throat, 
or in its own scabbard, it is equally unaffected by the mer- 
sion. It is important to notice this, because baptisms charac- 
terized by influence without envelopment could never origi- 
nate in such sword baptism, but must originate in another 
class of baptisms, viz., baptisms attended by influence upon 
the objects baptized. 



BAPTISM WITH INFLUENCE. 63 



INTUSPOSITION WITH INFLUENCE. 

1. Ba-Tt<jO£vTOS yap 7}/ia>v too tzXoiou xard fiiffov zbv ' ' Adpiav. 

Life of Josephus, § 3. 

2. 06-to fiiXXovroq fta-riUffOai rod axaipooq. Jewish Antiq., ix, 10. 

3. Meriutpoz bitepapdelq 6 xXudcov £j3d7rzi<T£v. u u iii, 9. 

4. Kal guv a&roTq i^anri^ovro Gxacpzai. " " iii, 10. 

5. TaJv dk fia-TiffOivTwv robq avavsuovraq. " " iii, 10. 

1. Our vessel having been mersed in the midst of the Adriatic. 

2. The vessel being on the point of being mersed. 

3. A lofty billow rising above mersed them. 

4. And were mersed with their vessels. 

5. But of the mersed those rising to the surface. 

PARTICULAR CASES EXAMINED. 
BAPTISM WITH INFLUENCE. 

1. "For our vessel having been mersed in the midst of 
the Adriatic, being in number about six hundred, we swam 
through the entire night." 

In the transaction here referred to, Josephus was himself 
a party. The fact is similar to those related in Classic Bap- 
tism and described by the same word. A ship is lost at sea 
and sinks to the bottom, and is said to be baptized — mersed. 
The form of the act involved in this case is invested with no 
doubt. It is sinking. And inasmuch as the form of act in 
sinking is not the same as the form of act in plunging, we, at 
once, see that the attempt to translate ^aizriZo) by a word ex- 
pressive of act, definite in form, is a mistake. Conant trans- 
lates, submerged. In doing so, he abandons that modality of 
form which he had incorporated in his translation of the pre- 
ceding case, and adopts a word expressive of condition. 

It should, also, be noted, that in this baptism there is no 
recovery of the baptized object. It remains in the Adriatic 
to this day. The influence attendant upon this baptism was 
entirely destructive in its character. The facts, throughout, 
indicate our interpretation of the word, while they are ruin- 
ous to " the theory." 



64 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

2. " The vessel being on the point of being mersed." 
Josephus gives an account of Jonah's disobedience, his 

flight to Joppa, hi3 embarkation on shipboard, the storm 
which arose during the voyage to Tarsus, and the momently 
threatened destruction of the ship, which he describes by 
saying, it was " on the point of being baptized." 

The storm neither threatened to dip or to plunge the vessel. 
It did threaten to baptize, to swallow up, to engulf, to merse, 
to place in a condition within the swelling waves without 
recovery. Out of this threatened condition, full of destruc- 
tive influence, the vessel was delivered by the sacrifice of the 
guilty prophet. 

The Baptist theory, as to the meaning of the word, finds 
no support in this transaction. Intusposition, without limita- 
tion of act, or time, or influence, squarely covers the case. 

3. " The lofty billow, rising above, mersed them." 

The Jews, to escape the Romans, after the capture of 
Joppa, betook themselves to their vessels, and put out from 
the shore. A storm, however, arose, which proved very de- 
structive to their shipping. Attempting to escape from the 
rocky shore, and the certain death which there awaited them, 
they turned toward the inrolling swell of the sea, and " the 
lofty billows, rising above their vessels, mersed them." The 
pressure of the storm-driven waves and the weight of the 
water falling upon their frail boats sank them. 

Such cases of baptism make havoc of the Baptist concep- 
tion of this w T ord, dipping and modal action, while they 
bring fresh tribute to that idea of its nature which liberates 
it from all trammels of form, and gives it control over all 
acts competent to meet its imperious demand, in primary 
use, for intusposition. 

4. "And were mersed with their vessels." 

After the capture of Tarichea, the Jews entered the ves- 
sels which had been prepared for such an emergency, and 
engaged in a sea-fight on Lake Genesareth with shipping 
got ready to attack them by Vespasian. 



BAPTISM WITH INFLUENCE. 05 

The lighter vessels of the Jews were crushed by the 
heavier Roman ships, and "the Jew- \ersed with their 

Is." 

Whatever forms of action may be involved in effecting 
the baptisms, a tempest blast, a swelling billow, the crush- 
ing blow of a war-ship, all alike eschew a dipping, while all, 
with one consent, effect the demanded state of intusposition 
with its controlling influence. 

o. '*But of those mersed that rose to the surface, either a 
dart overtook or a vessel seized upon them." 

The occurrence, here referred to, belongs to the same 
naval engagement. The special point claiming attention is 
the fact that person- . with a sinking ship, may come 

to the surface again previous to being drowned. Mersion 
is always unlimited, in itself, as to the time of continuance ; 
but it does not preclude the intervention of other causes to 
bring it to a termination. In the present case, it was the 
desire and effort of the Romans to make the mersion perma- 
nent; but, not having immediate control of the baptized. 
they, by their efforts to escape the natural and ordinary eon- 
sequence of baptism in water of human beings, succeeded 
in rising to the surface. It can hardly be necessary to call 
attention to the immense and radical difference between 
such a baptism and a dipping. A human being baptized into 
water, and left to the natural force of such baptism, state, 
or condition, will as certainly and invariably perish as that 
man was created to live upon the earth and to breathe the 
atmosphere. A human being dipped into water, and left to 
the natural force of such dipping, (dipping introduces iuto 
no state or condition,) will as certainly and invariably ex- 
perience no other effect than a superficial wetting, as that 
dipping carries its object, momentarily, into and recovers it 
out of water. 

Any attempt to unify t: alien in nature as a bap- 

tism and dipping must end in the blankest disappointment. 

Neither aid nor comfort, then, can be derived from this 

5 



66 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

transaction to sustain the Baptist theory in the sore extremity 
to which it is reduced. 

Ships baptized (carried to the bottom of the sea) by tem- 
pest or naval battle, and human beings baptized (drowned, 
or a right honest attempt made for it), will indicate PaicriZa 
as a word competent to bring its objects into a new state or 
condition characterized by controlling influence, but they 
can have neither part nor lot in an effort to fasten upon that 
word the fiction of a dipping. 



INTUSPOSITION FOR INFLUENCE. 

1. Bapoovreq del xdl ^anri^ovTeq wq kv naidia v7]%6/jl£vov, 

Jewish Antiq., xv, 3. 

2. BawviZ.6p.evoq iv xoXu/j-ftrjdpa, reXeora. Jewish War, i, 22. 

3. ' ' E(j6.iztl<jev ixtbv to cxatpoq. " " iii, 8. 

1. Always pressing down and mersing him, as if in sport, while 

swimming, they ceased not until they had wholly drowned 
him. 

2. And there, being mersed in the pool by the Galatians accord- 

ing to command, he died. 

3. Voluntarily mersed his ship. 

PARTICULAR CASES EXAMINED. 
BAPTISMS FOR INFLUENCE. 

1. " Always pressing down and mersing him, as if in sport, 
while swimming," 

Aristobulus, high priest and of royal blood, greatly be- 
loved by the people, had awakened the suspicion and jealousy 
of Herod, the reigning monarch, but without claim, by lineal 
descent, to the throne. Herod, having resolved upon his 
destruction, allured him to engage in sportive exercise, and 
when heated thereby, enticed him to a fish-pond, within his 



BAPTISMS FOR INFLUENCE. 67 

palace grounds, to induce him to seek refreshment by bath- 
ing in its waters. In the pond were already some of his 
creatures under pretence of bathing, but really to carry out 
the murderous intent of the king. Aristobulus having en- 
tered the pond, these assassins consummated their purpose 
by "pressing down and mersing his head while he was 
swimming, as if in sport." Thus Aristobulus was murdered 
by being drowned. 

The comment of Dr. Carson on this transaction is as follows: 
"Aristobulus was several times dipped before he was entirely 
suffocated. If so, the action of the verb was performed on 
him without destrovins; him. He mi«;ht have been saved 
after having been immersed. It was not the word bapiizo 
which destroyed him. It was the keeping him too long 
under the water after immersion," (p. 263.) In another 
case of drowning, he says: " The Greek word baptize would 
not hurt them more than the harmless English word dip, 
were there an immediate emersion; and dip, if not followed 
by an emersion, will be followed by death as its consequence, 
as well as bapiizo ; and the latter may be followed by emer- 
sion as well as the former. The continuation under water 
is not here expressed by the verb in question," (p. 286.) 

Baptists have good reason to do their best with this case, 
both to get drowning out of it and to get dipping into it. 
They could have no bolder or abler representative in making 
such attempt than Dr. Carson. How has he succeeded? 
The fact of drowning is so ingrained in the narrative of the 
baptism, that even a Carson will not attempt to eliminate it. 
The best that he can do, is to try and divorce it from fiarMX.u). 
The basis of this endeavor lies in the assumed identification 
between a baptism and a dipping. This assumption per- 
vades, like a fretting leprosy, all his writings, and utterly 
vitiates them, notwithstanding much that is true, for the end 
for which they are designed. In reply to the statement that 
"Aristobulus was several times dipped," we reply, Aristobu- 
lus was not " dipped" once. There was no act of " dipping" 
performed. He was in the water, under the water, except 
his head. That, his murderers did not dip, but " pressed 



68 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

down." The act of pressing down does not involve any 
raising up; nor did these murderers volunteer any such addi- 
tion. It would not have answered their purpose. If the 
head of Aristobulus ever got, again, above the water, into 
which it was "pressed down," he must get it there himself 
as he best could. He will have neither deed nor wish from 
Herod's assassins to help him. But not only does " pressing 
down " involve no taking out, and is thus alien from dip, 
neither does it involve any limitation of continuance within 
the water, and is, thus, again shown to be foreign in its nature 
from that word. Two things are evident in the narrative. 
1. Aristobulus was not "pressed down" sufficiently long, 
the first time, to suffocate him ; this would have betrayed the 
murderous intent. 2. He was "pressed down" sufficiently 
deep, and kept under water sufficiently long, to cause partial 
exhaustion. A repetition of such " sport " (on one who was 
each time less able to recover himself) soon produced the 
legitimate effect of a "pressing down" baptism. He was 
drowned. But, Dr. Carson says, "It was not the word bap- 
tize which destroyed him. It was the keeping him too long 
under the water after immersion." Is it naivete' most charm- 
ing, or acuteness most marvellous, which makes this sugges- 
tion? In whose service and at whose behest is "pressing 
down " acting? Is it not that of /Sct-rcT^? "When " pressing 
down" puts the unhappy High Priest under water, does 
/3a7tr^(o object ? "When it keeps him " under water too long" 
for life, does /?a-rtta> object ? If the maxim quifacit per alium 
facit per se, be true, this Greek cannot enter the plea — not 
guilty. 

" Died from being buried by the fall of a sandbank," says 
the coroner's jury. " Wrong," says the critic, " ' being buried ? 
did not kill him, it was the remaining too long under the 
sand ! " " Guilty of murder by cutting the man's throat," 
says the verdict. "No," answers the criminal, "cutting the 
throat does not kill, it is pressing the knife in too deeply ! " 
"Drowned by baptism in a pool," says Josephus. "Xo," 
says Carson, "not by baptism, but hy being kept too long 
under water! " Just as though the " keeping under water 



BAPTISMS FOR INFLUENCE. by 

too long " was not the very alpha and omega of the baptism 
designed, and as though a baptism was not chosen rather 
than a dipping, because under the one they could "keep him 
too long under the water" to live, and by the other they 
could not. 

Dr. Carson adds farther, " Dip, if not followed by an emer- 
sion, will cause death as well as baptize" The supposition 
is an impossible one. Emersion belongs to dip as really as 
immersion. Immersion without emersion is not a dipping. 
On the other hand, baptism has nothing to do with an emer- 
sion. Never since iSa-zt^a* existed, did it take out of the water 
what it put into it. In whatever case a baptized object has 
been removed from a state of baptism, the removal was never 
effected, directly or indirectly, by paxxl'w. The assassins 
baptized Aristobulus. Aristobulus recovered himself out of 
this state of baptism without help from them. Again they 
baptized him; and again he recovered himself. At length, 
too much exhausted to struggle more, he remained in that 
state of baptism into which he was brought by Herod's com- 
mand, and perished. Emersion in this case was an accident 
and foreign to the word; drowning was the natural and 
necessary consequence, except through foreign intervention 
to prevent its occurrence. Just as soon as this foreign inter- 
vention (the struggles of Aristobulus) ceased, the baptism 
bore its legitimate fruit, and Herod was a murderer. 

Unless Baptists can find some happier case than this by 
which to convert a baptism into a dipping, their labor will 
receive but poor reward. 

2. "And there, being mersed in the pool by the Galatians 
according to command, he died." 

This is a second allusion to this same murder. It differs 
from the former in omitting to give any form of act by which 
the baptism was effected. In the absence of such informa- 
tion, imagination might exhaust itself in vain attempts to 
learn the facts of the case. So far is it from being true, that 
the Greek word is, in such matter, its own expositor; there 
is absolutely no help to be derived from it to learn the defi- 



70 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

nite act by which any baptism is secured. Such knowledge 
must come from other quarters. Had the "Antiquities" of 
Josephus perished, this statement in his " War" would have 
left us hopelessly in the dark, as to the act employed by the 
assassins in the baptism of Aristobulus. 

This passage, also, leads to the remark, that Josephus had 
other ideas than Carson entertained as to the legitimate force 
of a baptism. The historian says, "being mersed he died." 
The defender of the Baptist theory says, " baptize does not 
hurt anybody, it is being kept too long under water!" It 
would seem that Josephus thought that this baptism em- 
braced the " too long under water." Neither Jew nor Greek 
ever wrote "being dipped, he died." This baptism was for 
the sake of its deadly influence. 

3. "As, also, I esteem a pilot most cowardly, who, fearing 
a storm, should voluntarily merse his ship before the tempest 
came." 

This is part of an argument by Josephus against suicide 
in times of impending peril. He says, that self-murder, to 
avoid peril, is not manlike, but cowardly, as the action of a 
pilot who should sink his ship for fear of a storm. As to 
the particular form of act by which the vessel was to be 
brought to the bottom of the sea, the Orator gives us no in- 
formation, any more than he informs us by what form of act 
the suicide was to kill himself. To kill, expresses a very 
definite result to be accomplished, but does not throw one 
ray of light on a thousand definite acts equally competent to 
reach that result. To merse, expresses a very definite result 
to be effected; but it is dumb with silence as to the form of 
act by which it may be accomplished. We must, then, re- 
main forever in ignorance whether this pilot was to baptize 
his ship by running her against a rock, by carrying too much 
sail, by turning her broadside to the rising wave, by unship- 
ping her rudder, by scuttling her, or in whatever other con- 
ceivable method the end could be accomplished. Certain is 
it, we appeal in vain to PaxTi'w to instruct us on this point. 
Or, if Baptists can extract a definite act from this word, and 



FIGURE GROUNDED IN DESTRUCTIVE MERSION. 71 

illuminate the quo modo of this pilot baptism, it must be 
through some secret in philological chemistry to which we 
have not yet attained. 

This comparison by Josephus of a suicide to this mersing 
pilot may help us to understand some other cases of mersion. 
The points of comparison pair off thus: self-murderer and 
pilot; life and ship; suffering and tempest; death and mer- 
sion. Does any one doubt, that the point of accord in the 
first pair is that of control, wielded by the suicide over life 
and by the pilot over his ship; in the second pair, the stakes 
at issue; in the third pair, the sources of dread; and in the 
fourth pair, what? a likeness between death and a dipping f 
between death and enveloping water ? or, between the destruc- 
tion of " life " however effected, and the destruction of the 
" ship " however effected ? 

"Will any one in his sober senses think of bringing into 
view the means to these ends, a sword in the one case, a 
watery envelopment in the other ? Is not the comparison 
wholly exclusive of such things, and exhausted by the naked 
idea of destruction, caused in the one case by a sword, and in 
the other by encompassing waters, and agreeing in nothing 
but their power of destruction? If this be so, then, we may 
find in other cases, that "mersion" stands neither for envel- 
opment, nor definite act, but as the representative of destruc- 
tion. Certainly this ship-mersion was a baptism for influence. 



FIGURE GROUNDED IN DESTRUCTIVE MERSION. 

1. "Qv-sp PoKTiCofiivrj? vsw? aTTcv^ovro t?}<; TioXeiot;. 

Jewish War, n, 20. 

2. TuvO (baizzp reXeoraia OueXXa ^ei(xa^o/iivouq robs veaviaxouq i~Cj3d-rt<T£. 

Jewish War, i, 27. 

1. As from a ship being mersed, swam away from the city. 

2. This, as a last storm, overmersed the tempest-beaten young 

men. 



72 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

PARTICULAR CASES EXAMINED. 
FIGURE WITH MERSION. 

1. " Many of the distinguished Jews, as from a ship being 
mersed, swam away from the city." 

The Romans having raised the siege of Jerusalem and re- 
treated, some of its principal citizens availed themselves of 
the opportunity to make their escape. The condition of the 
city, at this time, is represented by the historian as most 
hopeless, and likened to a ship on the point of being swal- 
lowed up in the sea. The comparison thus instituted between 
the condition of the city being ruined, and the condition of 
a ship being swallowed up, leads to the use of a word ("to 
swim away") expressive of method of escape, well adapted 
to one member of the comparison, a ship, but not appro- 
priate, in its form of movement, to the other, a city. 

" To swim " is not limited to application to movement 
through water, — " She swam across the room." But such 
smooth, gliding movement is not adapted to express the move- 
ment with which men fly from impending ruin. Are we, then, 
to understand the writer, by the use of this term and by the 
comparison with a ship, to intend that his readers should 
conceive of Jerusalem as encompassed by a waste of waters, 
into which its citizens are leaping and "swimming away?" 
Is such a picture, drawn by a brush dipped into " swimming 
away," anything else than most ridiculous? Let us make 
another application of this method of interpretation. In this 
same paragraph, this escape from the city is represented 
as a "flying away." Shall we now, on the strength of this 
terra, make another draft on our imaginations, and taking 
these eminent citizens from the watery element, substitute 
wings for fins, while we gaze in rapt admiration as they launch 
away from the crumbling battlements, and "fly" to some far- 
off region of repose? " Ran away" is used to describe this 
same flight. Does this word shut us up to the spectacle of 
a race against time, running on foot or on horseback ? Or, 
is the wealth of imagination to be displayed by the concep- 



FIGURE WITH MERSION. 73 

tion of a picture in which all these features are artistically 
grouped; having war-shattered Jerusalem for its centre, en- 
compassing waters for its field, citizens "running" through 
its shallows, citizens "swimming" through its depths, citi- 
zens "flying" through the air — is this the picture? 

Does this seem to be only an amusing extravagance ? 

It is a simple representation of Baptist "figure," which 
demands that a word, not used in its primary sense, should 
carry with it, in such use, all that pertains to its primary ap- 
plication. Thus, Dr. Carson insists that "figure" shall take 
up the " baptized coast," and dip it into the sea; for though 
it is not dipped, yet it must be dipped by imagination, be- 
cause " the word means dip, and nothing but dip." And the 
"baptized" drunkard must, by "figure," be put into wine; 
for although putting into wine won't make anybody drunk, 
yet " the word means dip, and nothing but dip," and in he 
must go. And the "baptized" debtor must, by "figure," 
go into the water, sinking with a load on his shoulders, be- 
cause " the word means dip, and nothing but dip." Such 
doctrine, requiring a word to carry everywhere all the fea- 
tures entering into original use, whether applicable or inap- 
plicable, reminds one of the old lady who could not visit her 
next neighbor without carrying along her " big box and 
little box, bandbox and bundle." The doctrine of Sir Wil- 
liam Hamilton is better conformed to fact and the exigencies 
of the case, — "All languages, by the same word, express a 
multitude of thoughts, more or less differing from each other. 
"We are obliged, from the context, from the tenor, and from 
the general analogy of the discourse, to determine the mean- 
ing." Now, when the terms "swim away," "fly away," 
"run away," each denoting, originally, a definite form of 
movement, (one through water, one through air, and one over 
the face of the earth,) are applied to the flight of citizens 
from an imperilled city, shall we insist on the definite move- 
ment of each, or merge them in the idea, to escape, which is 
common to them all? To "swim away" from a ship indi- 
cates the use of the last means for safety; to " swim away" 
from a city suggests, not the modal use of arms and legs, 



74 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

but a resort to extreme means for getting away. So " to fly 
away," " to run away," do not shut up to mode of depar- 
ture, but we may take out of both of them the single element 
of " rapidity of movement," rejecting everything else, and 
apply it as the case may require. 

In the passage before us, the mersion has nothing to do, 
directly, with the city. The figure centres in the destruction 
common to ship and city, with the anxiety of sailors in the 
one ease, and of citizens in the other, to escape being in- 
volved in that destruction ; it does not reach either to the 
nature or the means of the destruction. The figure does 
not involve the city in any water envelopment. The ship 
perishes ; the city perishes. Ruin, and escape from ruin, 
begin and end " the figure." 

The figure involves a destructive mersion, and, therefore, 
has nothing in common with a dipping. 

2. " This, as a last storm, overmersed the tempest-beaten 
young men." 

These young men were the sons of Herod, whom he had 
long threatened with death, under the idea that they were 
plotting against him. They had, however, escaped, until 
accusation was made by Salome, Herod's wife and their 
mother-in-law, under which, " as a last storm," they lost 
their lives. 

The passage presents, what is rare, a distinct and well- 
sustained picture figure, with mersion as a leading element. 
Aristobulus and Alexander, sons of Herod by Mariamne, 
became, after their mother's death, objects of suspicion, ac- 
cusations, and plottings, with a view to compass their de- 
struction. Josephus indicates this condition of things, when 
he speaks of them as tempest-tossed and weather-beaten. 
They suffered from these influences, but lived. Salome ef- 
fected their destruction. These facts suggest a resemblance 
to a ship which has weathered many storms, but, at last, 
goes down under one of resistless power. 

The points of comparison are plain : 1. The young men 
and ship with her crew. 2. Various evil machinations and 



FIGURE WITH MERSION. 75 

frequent storms. 3. Salome's accusation and the final storm. 
4. Death and baptism. 

"What demands attention here, as bearing upon our in- 
quiry, is: 1. The absence of all show of comparison between 
any act on the one hand and on the other. 2. The same 
lack of comparison between any condition on the one side 
and condition of envelopment on the other. 

It it be asked, Is there not "envelopment" in baptism? 
I answer, Yes, in every primary baptism ; but that does 
not carry "envelopment" into a comparison. Envelopment 
may be the end of a baptism, as when I put a stone within 
water, or it may be only a means to an end, as when Aris- 
tobulus is put within water by assassins. When, therefore, 
I use baptism as a comparison, I may use simply the idea 
of envelopment, or I may reject entirely the envelopment, 
and limit the comparison to the result of envelopment. This 
has been done in the present case. There is no comparison 
between the direct means causing the death of these young 
men, whatever it was, and the direct means causing the de- 
struction of the ship, which was envelopment by water; but 
the comparison is between the indirect means, namely, Sa- 
lome's accusation and the final storm. Thus, envelopment 
is left out of view, and its result — remediless destruction — 
is brought into the foreground. 

As used in this passage, (lamina) speaks, directly, of de- 
struction. " This accusation caused these suffering young 
men to perish, as a final storm causes a weather-beaten ship 
to perish." The quo modo of perishing, in the one case or 
the other, however well they may be understood, are not in 
the comparison. Figurative use of words often lights up, 
resplendently, their literal use. We are here, distinctly, 
taught that /Jowti'Coi may be used to express, directly, the result 
of mersion. 

This is a truth of the first importance, and utterly repu- 
diated by the Baptist theory. To escape it, they prefer to 
adopt all sorts of grotesque imaginings shrouded in nonde- 
script " figure." 



76 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 



LITEKAL, SECONDARY USE. 

CONDITION WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION — INFLUENCE PERVADING AND 
CONTROLLING, UNLIMITED IN FORM, FORCE, OR TIME. 

BAPTISM WITHOUT MERSION. 

1. ' ' EiziftaTZTiffetv yap avrdu Try itoXtv. Jewish War, in, 7. 

2. a t di] xou dt/a r?jg ardaeuiq, uarepov kftdnrMJav Tijv xofav. 

Jewish War, iv, 3. 

3. "Are fia7tTt£6/j.evou rol<; kmuvai rob XoyKT/iou. JPhilo, Eusebius. 

1. For he, himself, would overmerse the city. 

2. Who, independently of the sedition, afterwards mersed the 

city. 

3. As though the reason were mersed by the things coming 

upon it. 

Baptism of the City of Jotapata. 

1. " It did not become him, either to fly from enemies, 
or to abandon friends ; nor to leap off, as from a ship over- 
taken by a storm, into which he had entered in fair weather; 
that he would, himself, overmerse the city, as no one would 
longer dare to make resistance to the enemy when he was 
gone through whom their courage was sustained." 

Josephus, besieged in Jotapata, purposed, after the de- 
fence became hopeless, to escape, thinking that he might, 
on some other field, be of more service to his country. The 
citizens objected in the language above quoted. 

A first glance at the passage might convey the impression 
that PaitTL^io was used in picture figure. A closer examina- 
tion would, however, correct such impression. There is, in- 
deed, figure in the passage, but it is limited to a compari- 
son between the city unassailed by enemies (when Josephus 
came to it) and a ship in a calm, and between the city as- 
sailed by enemies (when Josephus talks of leaving) and a 
ship in a storm. This is all the figure. 

The subsequent use of /SarniC^, most probably, was sug- 
gested by this figure; but it is not itself figurative; certainly 



BAPTISM OF THE CITY OF JOTAPATA. 77 

not in any Baptist sense. It is intolerable to suppose that a 
city is figured, through the departure of an individual, as 
dipped into water, immersed in the sea, overwhelmed by a 
flood, or sunk in the ocean. Such extravagances, in full 
statement, Baptist writers are careful to keep out of view. 
They content themselves with a vague reference to the vague 
term "figure," and then vaguely translate by some word 
made vague in its import by a double use. Dr. Conant calls 
it "figure," and translates overwhelm. But this word has a 
double use, in one of which neither water-floods, nor cover- 
ing can be found. 

" Long beards, long noses, and pale faces, 
They overwhelm me with the spleen." 

Do " beards," " noses," " faces," let loose water-floods, or 

envelop with anything ? 

11 Guilty and guiltless find an equal fate, 
And one vast ruin whelm the Olympian state." 

Can any human device convert "one vast ruin" into a 
flood of water? Or, can this " Olympian state" be put, by 
this language, into a state of envelopment f 

Dr. Conant, theoretically, uses " overwhelm" in one sense; 
all his readers will understand it in another sense. 

Dr. Carson translates "sink the city," in flat contradiction 
of his reiterated and absolutely exclusive definition, — " dip, 
and nothing but dip." But I must be careful how I call 
"dip — sink/' a contradiction, lest I should be sprinkled with 
"Attic salt." 

This is only "figure;" one mode of action put for another! 
Avery convenient figure certainly. And, also, one meaning 
put for another. For Dr. Carson does not mean that " sink" 
shall either put the city into the sea or into the earth, but, 
contrary to theory, is compelled to use it in its secondary 
sense — to ruin. Hear his own language: "He would sink 
or epibaptize the city. His desertion of the city would be 
the means of its ruin. He is then represented as doing the 
thing that would be the consequence of his departure," (p. 



78 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

98.) And this " ruin" is directly, and not figuratively, ex- 
pressed by fianriZw, deriving its power so to do from that de- 
structive influence which is the so-common result of envel- 
opment baptism. 

The nut is cracked, the enveloping shell is worse than 
useless, and thrown aside; while the kernel truth, adapted 
to the case, is applied. 

What these failures of Baptist writers indicate to be true 
is proved to be so, indeed, by the language of the passage ; 
"He would overmerse — ruin — the city, because no one would 
longer resist the enemy" Then the epibaptism was to come 
from the " enemy," not from an oVERivhelming flood, nor from 
the ship-city sinking in the sea. Figure would have required 
their efforts to be made against the storm, not against the 
Romans. 

The case is one of secondary use, — influence without en- 
velopment. And no abandonment of clip for "flood" or 
"sink" can save the Baptist theory from an epibaptism, as 
ruinous as that which abandonment by Josephus would have 
brought on Jotapata. 

Baptism of the City of Jerusalem. 

2. " "Who, independently of the sedition, afterward mersed 
the city." 

During the war between the Jews and the Romans, cer- 
tain robber chiefs with their bands sought refuge in Jerusa- 
lem, where they became the source of turmoil and sedition. 
But these were not the only evils resulting from their pres- 
ence. The provisions of the city were limited for a pro- 
tracted siege, and these plundering and murderous bands, 
consuming the food which might, otherwise, have sufficed 
for the defenders of the city, brought on famine, and thus, 
without sedition, would have baptized — mersed — ruined — 
the cit\^. 

Dr. Conant calls this " figure," and says : " This natural 
and expressive image of trouble and distress occurs often in 
the Old Testament. For example, Ps. 69 : 2, ' I am come 
into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.' Verses 



BAPTISM OF THE CITY OF JERUSALEM. 79 

14, 15 : 'Let me be delivered . . . out of the deep waters; 
let not the water-flood overflow me.' Ps. 18 : 16, 17: 'He 
drew me oat of many waters; he delivered me from my 
strong enemy.' Job's afflictions are expressed under the 
same image (eh. 22:11): 'The flood of waters covers me.' 
ComparcPs. 124:4, 5; 144:7; 32:6; Ezek. 26:19." 

A grand source of confusion and profitless result in the 
Baptist controversy has been looseness in the statement of 
principles, or looseness in the examination of the evidence 
adduced to support those principles; sometimes looseness 
in both these particulars. 

The Baptist conception of the value of fim&^m is a variable 
quantity of the first degree. There is no harmony in the defi- 
nition of the word, and there is still less harmony between 
the definition and the evidence adduced to sustain it. 

Consider for a moment the definition of y5arrc'£w — " to dip, 
and nothing but dip" — and then look at these quotations 
adduced for its support. Is it not a reproach on a man's 
sanity to ask him to accept the one in proof of the other? 
If applying their own defining term, plunge, (as given on 
other occasions,) to all cases of usage, makes their sentiments 
" ridiculous," much more is the definition dip made ridicu- 
lous in the midst of witnesses like these. 

An ass in a lion's skin is a trifle in folly compared with 
" dip" making a figure in the attire of " rushing torrents" 
and "inundating floods." The zenith and the nadir will 
come together sooner than such definition and such evidence 
will be made to harmonize. 

Again, there is a looseness in applying these " torrents 
and floods" to baptism which needs to be corrected. A 
torrent may effect a baptism, and a flood may effect a bap- 
tism ; but a torrent may sweep against one, and cause great 
distress and peril, without causing a baptism; and one may 
be in the midst of a flood, and be filled with anguish, in view 
of a baptism within its waters, and yet escape un baptized. 
Tinion's proposed victim had been swept away by a flood 
of waters ; he was in distress and helpless as he was swept 
by the torrent toward the bank where stood this hater of his 



80 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

race; but be was not baptized until this man-hater stopped 
his ears to the cry : "lam come into deep waters;" "De- 
liver me ; let not the water-flood overflow me;" " Draw me 
out of many waters ;" and, with heart which knew no sym- 
pathy with his kind, baptized him, pressing his head, never 
to rise again, beneath the waters. Now, this victim of Ti- 
mon's went through all the experiences suggested by these 
quotations of Dr. Conant before his baptism ; this imagery 
of water-floods is no image of baptism, but of peril, distress, 
and anguish. Water-floods may issue in a baptism ; they 
do not do so necessarily; rushing waters and swelling floods, 
therefore, are not imagery for baptism, but for troubles and 
distresses which are always their accompaniments. Jonah's 
ship, assailed by the tempest and the dashing billows, was 
in distress, in peril, and " ready to be baptized ;" so that the 
cry rang out above the howling of the storm : "Let us be 
delivered out of the deep waters; let not the water-flood 
overflow us !" That picture — raging sea, bending masts, 
tossing ship, praying crew — is the image of distress ; it is 
not the image of a baptism. 

Baptism is not an act done, nor something in transitu, but 
a result reached; a state or condition accomplished. Herod's 
sons were many times in peril and distress from plottings 
and machinations (torrents and floods); but were never bap- 
tized until Salome's accusation put them into their graves; 
their baptisms calmed the troubled waters, as Jonah's bap- 
tism stilled the tempest, and brought deliverance to the im- 
perilled ship and crew. 

These quotations from the Psalms, therefore, confound 
things that differ. " Trouble and distress " are no more 
baptism, than a tempest- tossed ship is a ship lying in the 
depths of the sea. 

If you would have imagery of baptism (in this direction), 
you must not present imagery of suffering and peril, but of 
ruin and death. And this conclusion brings, again, into bold 
relief the entire incompetency of the Baptist theory to ac- 
count for the usage of this word. 

Let us, now, look at the passage itself. In doing this we 



BAPTISM OF THE CITY OF JERUSALEM. 81 

are struck with the simplicity and straightforwardness of 
the statement. Nothing could be more naked of all figura- 
tive picturing, unless it be found in the naked word /fanrtCcL 
Baptist writers have long enough assumed the power of " the 
word to find them water in a desert." They must give some 
evidence of its power to flood Jerusalem. They will not 
find such evidence in the passage. These robbers baptized 
the city, not by letting loose an imaginary flood upon it, but 
by eating up its jwovisioyis ! 

This is Joseph us's notion of a baptism, and under its in- 
fluence the imaginative Baptist soaring on waxen wings is 
brought back, very summarily, to the regions of common 
sense. The provisions devoured, then comes famine, then 
comes feebleness of defenders, then comes conquest, then 
follows the flaming temple, and stone torn from stone, blank 
ruin — profoundest baptism. 

Most evidently does Josephus take the element of destruc- 
tion, inhering in so many baptisms, and crowding that idea 
into every letter of this word, to the rejection of all beside, 
most directly affirms, that " the robbers, by inducing a famine, 
baptized the city" — brought it into a state of utter ruin! 

I affirm baptism in water-floods more strongly than any 
Baptist writer ever did, or ever can, with any show of con- 
sistency with his theory; but I affirm that there is no more 
water in /9a;rrt£>, in this passage, than there is fire. There is 
not the remotest hint, in word or thought, that water was 
present to the mind of the writer. As for the word itself, 
there is as much fire in it as there is water; and Dr. Conant 
might as well have quoted the fiery baptism of Sodom and 
Gomorrah, as the water-floods of the Psalms, to meet the 
demands of the Greek word. Indeed, as there was more 
fire, under the Roman torch, in the final baptism of Jerusa- 
lem, than there was water, baptism by fire would seem to 
have the right of precedence over water baptism. This is 
certain, beyond all controversy, that the simple word ftanT^io 
gives no authority to introduce water into any baptism; 
therefore, its introduction in any case, in fact or by imagina- 

6 



82 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

tion, must bring justifying evidence from other source than 
this word. 

In the present case there is not one particle of such evi- 
dence. On the other hand, we have the most perfect evidence, 
from text and context, that utter destruction is the thought 
in view; while we have no less complete evidence that ftar.ri^io 
is identified with results of destruction most absolute, and is 
therefore qualified, on the present occasion, to express such 
destruction. And this duty, we say, it does, in fact, here 
perform. 

Dr. Carson both approves and condemns this conclusion. 
He says, " The immediate ruin of the affairs of the city is the 
only thing that is asserted. It asserts that the robbers ruined 
or sunk the city." Carson cannot escape acknowledging, 
that " ruin " is the thing declared. But how can the " ruin" 
of a great city be got out of dip f Why, not at all, as every- 
body knows, and none better than Dr. C; "dip, and nothing 
but dip," must, therefore, be metamorphosed into "sink," a 
word radically differing both in form and power. Conant 
translates by " whelm," a word differing essentially from 
both the others. This difference of translation of a word 
which is u the most facile in translation of all words, never 
having but one meaning," arises from a fundamental differ- 
ence in the interpretation of the passage. Enough has been 
said of Dr. Conant's view. Carson (p. 84) takes us out to sea, 
and shows us " a ship sinking from being overburdened and 
ill-managed in a storm from the dissensions of the crew," and 
says, see there " a striking and beautiful figure" — of a city 
baptized by famine] ! ! 

If the pinions of Dr. Carson's imagination had not been 
sufficiently strong to bear Jerusalem into mid ocean to sink 
it, I have no doubt that he would have taken it to pieces, 
stone by stone, and dipped it in the pool of Bethesda. 

This Baptist writer tells us the word, if applied to houses, 
would show that it did not mean immerse, because houses 
cannot- be immersed, (p. 368.) But how so, when he thinks 
nothing of taking all the houses of Jerusalem and giving 
them a sinking-dip in a trice? I think we must let Josephus 



BAPTISM BY GLUTTONY. 83 

have Lis own way, and, rejecting flood and storm, accept the 
robber baptism by famine, bringing the long-prophesied ruin 
to the city. 

Baptism, of the Intellect by Gluttony. 

3. " One might evidence it also by this, — the sober and 
content are more intelligent, but those always rilled with 
drink and food are least intelligent, as though the reason 
were mersed by the things coming upon it." 

Philo was a Jew, living in the first century. He contrasts 
in this passage the intellectual manifestation of those who 
lead a frugal, with such as lead a gluttonous life, — vigor 
characterizing the former and imbecility the latter. It is a 
fact of universal experience, that excessive eating and drink- 
ing exerts an unfavorable influence over intellectual devel- 
opment. 

Dr. Carson passes over this case. Had he noticed it, we 
should, no doubt, have been treated to the " beautiful and 
striking figure" of an overloaded ship sinking in storm or 
calm ; or the glutton, in deep water, sinking under a burden 
on his shoulders (it may be a wine-skin and a round of beef); 
thus magnifying the powers of imagination, if not throwing 
light on the usage of the word. 

Dr. Conant translates by " whelm." Whether " the natu- 
ral and expressive image" of water-floods is to be introduced 
here, as in the previous case of " whelming," he does not 
state. What light can be thrown upon the meaning of 
pa-riZat by dipping, or sinking, or whelming this glutton, in 
fact or in figure, I have not enough of imagination to con- 
ceive. If no such picturing is to be clone, then we must look 
for the baptism either in a literal envelopment, or give the 
word direct power to express hurtful influence without en- 
velopment. 

Some might plead in favor of the first interpretation, that 
the meat and drink are represented as "coming upon" the 
reason. In that case, the reason would have to lie' at the 
bottom of the stomach, while eatables and potables came 
down upon it. ISTo doubt a baptism could be so effected; 



84 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

for Dr. Fuller says, a man who lies on the sea-shore will he 
baptized by the waves "coming upon" him. As to this 
baptism, I have only to confess that the brains of some people 
seem to be very closely connected with the epigastric region. 
My preference, however, is for the other baptism. 

I accept the statement as simple and direct in both cases : 
" The reason is affected beneficially by temperance, while it 
is baptized — influenced injuriously — by gluttony." Does any 
one doubt the truth of the sentiment? Does any one doubt 
that fiaxTtZa) may, legitimately, acquire such power of utter- 
ance from connection with baptisms where hurtful influence 
has a necessary, yet secondary place (because only a conse- 
quence), but now brought forward, in new circumstances, 
into a primary position ? 

Such interpretation must stand until the negative of these 
questions is established. 



TO BAPTIZE— TO MAKE DEUNK. 

APPROPRIATION. 

Olda di rtvas, ot, Zxeidav axpod(opaxs<; yivcovrat, -Kpiv rsXiioq (SaitTKrO^vai. 

Philo, ii, 478. On Contemp. Life. 

I know some, who, when they become slightly intoxicated, before 
they become thoroughly drunk. 

Baptism by Wine-drinking. 

"I know some, who, when they become slightly intoxi- 
cated, before they become thoroughly drunk, make provision 
for to-morrow's drinking by contribution and tickets." 

Such use of PaizriZa) is to be regarded as proof that this 
word had secured to itself the power to express, directly, the 
influence of wine-drinking, — to make drunk. 

1. The ground of this conclusion is found in prevailing 
and persistent usage of the same phraseology and with the 
same application. 



TO BAPTIZE — TO MAKE DRUNK. 85 

In Classic Baptism (p. 317), will be found the following 
quotations : " You seem to be made drunk (baptized) by un- 
mixed wine." " Then making drank (baptizing), he set me 
free." " Having made drunk (baptized), Alexander by much 
wine." " Wine makes drunk (baptizes)." "I am one of those 
made drunk (baptized), yesterday." " Making themselves drunk 
(baptizing), out of great wine-jars." " Made drunk (baptized), 
by yesterday's debauch." " $"ot yet made drunk (baptized)." 
These quotations are from various writers, separated from 
each other, geographically, widely, and extending through 
a space of time exceeding five centuries. In addition to this 
the fact (drunkenness) to which the word was applied being 
of daily occurrence, and extending from generation to gene- 
ration, it could not but be, that any word used to designate 
it must be in continual use. This is, farther, shown to be 
true from the form of use. It is employed absolutely, with- 
out any helping adjunct, and without the shadow of stated 
or designed figure. Unless the word was in familiar use, it 
would be unintelligible when thus thrown upon its power of 
self-explanation. But it had, most clearly, such self-explain- 
ing power. And now, if all other usage of fta-nCio were 
blotted out of the Greek language, this usage would live, 
having life in itself, and proclaim from every passage — make 
drunk ! 

2. Proof of this meaning is found in the fact, that the word 
is not only self-explanatory, but is capable of being used, in 
this well-understood sense, in explanation of what was less 
intelligible. 

"When an old man drinks of the fountain, and Silenus 
takes possession of him, immediately, he is for a long time 
silent, and resembles one heavy-headed and drunk (bap- 
tized.)" (Classic Baptism, p. 830.) Here fiaizri'u) is used by 
Lucian, as possessed of a meaning so unmistakable, that he 
considers it quite sufficient, in expounding something not 
understood, to say, "it resembles one baptized." Who will 
say, this is figure, and means that one who drinks of the Si- 
lenic fount is like one dipped in water, whelmed by a water- 
flood, or sunk in the sea? All retreat under cloudy figure, 



86 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

here, is gone. There is but one meaning possible. The 
effects of drinking Silenic water are like the effects of drink- 
ing wine. The effects of what is not understood are ex- 
plained by that which is well understood. Let any man who 
never had explanation of this wonderful fountain, ask Lucian, 
what is the effect on the drinker? and his answer is, — like 
that of wine; which makes a man "heavy-headed and drunk" 
How the theory of " dipping, and nothing but dipping, 
through all Greek literature," can survive such usage, is for 
others to determine. 

3. Proof of this meaning is found in the meaning of the 
associated and contrasted word, — axpoOatpaxeg. 

This word, in its philology, has nothing more to do with 
wine-drinking than has fta-Kri^m. It means " slightly armed," 
or breast armed. Yet, Dr. Conant does not hesitate to trans- 
late it — "slightly intoxicated" — while the contrasted word, 
fiaTZTtCiOj which every rational consideration requires to be 
translated — excessively intoxicated — he beclouds by translating 
— whelm. 

If there be one half of the evidence for translating the 
former of these two words by "slight intoxication," that 
there is for translating the latter by excessive intoxication, I 
do not know where it is to be found. Reference may be 
made to Aristotle iii Prob. 2, Erotianus OnomasL, Plutarch 
Sympos., Mercurialis iv 6 Var. Lect., and Clem. Alex, i, 
416, in support of the meaning. And there may be other 
authority ; but this is enough. And, if so, why not the more 
numerous authorities, and the more varied evidence, suffice 
to establish the meaning of iSax-t^w, however diverse from 
bare philology ? This association of these terms causes them 
to react, the one upon the other, in confirming to each, re- 
spectively, the meaning attributed to it. 

4. Proof of this meaning is found in its harmony with the 
laws of language-development. 

Words have a life like that of the vine. They send forth 
branches, which may be either a simple extension of all the 
peculiarities of the parent stem, with entire dependence upon 
it; or, still retaining their connection, they may, like the 



TO BAPTIZE — TO MAKE DRUNK. 87 

vine-branch whose extremity is turned down and planted in 
the ground, make an additional source of life for themselves; 
or, yet farther, all dependence on the parent stem may be 
severed, and, rooted in the ground, they make a new and 
independent source of life for themselves, with peculiarities 
which may be propagated still farther. "When we say, the 
child grows, the plant grows, the population grows, there is 
but an extension of the same conception. The man runs, the 
locomotive runs, the river runs, the steamer runs, the watch 
runs, the candidate runs, are phrases which show not merely 
an extension of the original thought, but, also, that each has 
established a root for itself amid the elements of thought. 
To dip, to dye, shows not merely an extension of the original 
act, or the formation of an additional root, but the dissolu- 
tion of all organic relation and the establishment of an inde- 
pendent life with the power of procreation. 

Is"ow, as ftd-Tw gave origin to dye, through the coloring-vat, 
so fta-rgio gave origin to controlling influence, through mersion 
of particular objects, and with this new power applied to wine- 
drinking, it did, by appropriation, advance to the definite 
and direct expression of such influence in the fullest degree; 
proclaiming every baptized wine-drinker to be made drunk. 

5. Proof is found in the impracticability of any rational 
introduction of figure. 

Imagination can do a great deal; but much that it does is 
without the sanction of right reason. To expound the pas- 
sage under consideration, Dr. Oonant uses the following lan- 
guage : " To overwhelm (figuratively) with an intoxicating 
licmor, or a stupefying drug, that takes full possession of 
one's powers, like a resistless flood; or, (as the figure may 
sometimes be understood,) to steep in, as by immersing in a 
liquid." In what way, or in what measure, this language 
throws light upon the case before us, I cannot say; for, to 
me, it is much less intelligible than what it is intended to 
expound. Does Dr. Conant mean by " overwhelm, figura- 
tively," that a mental picture is to be sketched of wine-casks, 
with bursting heads, pouring forth a vinous flood, by which 
the drunkard is overwhelmed and swept away ? Does he 



88 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

mean by a " stupefying drug," a liquid, or a solid ? Is stupe- 
faction by -'figurative overwhelming," accomplished by laud- 
anum as a sweeping torrent, or by opium as a falling and 
crushing mass ? Whether Dr. C.'s good sense will repudiate 
such figuring as this, (in which the luxuriant imaginations 
of other Baptist writers find delight,) I am quite at a loss to 
determine from his lan^uao;e. 

What is the meaning of " intoxicating liquor or a stupefy- 
ing drug taking full possession of one's powers, like a resist- 
less flood" I am equally at a loss to understand. That "a 
resistless flood takes possession of one's powers," is a state- 
ment of fact that I do not remember ever before to have met 
with; and if I had, I should still have been "at sea" in at- 
tempting to imagine the foundation in nature for such lan- 
guage. Wines and drugs " take possession " of our faculties; 
overwhelming torrents and floods sweep them away. " To 
take possession" cannot be likened to "sweeping away." 
" Wines and drugs," therefore, cannot be likened, in their 
effects any more than in their forms, to " torrents and floods." 

But, Dr. Conant does not seem to be settled in his own 
mind as to the nature or form of this "figurative overwhelm- 
ing." We are told that "the figure may sometimes be un- 
derstood, to steep in, as by immersing in a liquid." Is it 
intended by the emphatic "steep m" and "immerse in a 
liquid" to necessitate the imagining of the drunkard put into 
wine, and of the stupefied put into an opiate? Or, is the re- 
iterated inness to be disregarded and effects only to be re- 
garded ? But why is the overwhelming limited to a " liquid?" 
Does Dr. Conant doubt, that a man can be overwhelmed, 
baptized, by chewing solid opium, as well as by drinking its 
alcoholic extract in the shape of laudanum ? In the case of 
the baptized opium-chewer must we fall back for exposition 
of this word to "a resistless flood?" 

If good sense is too much shocked by such imaginations 
and such inconsistencies, and affirms, that all that is meant 
is, the controlling influence exerted by wines and opiates on the 
one side, and floods and torrents on the other, rejecting the 
modus, in the one case and in the other, as having nothing 



TO BAPTIZE — TO MAKE DRUNK. 89 

m common, then I ask, whether the Baptist theory has not 
been rejected, whether it be made to rest on the sine qua non 
of a dipping, or of an intusposition? And 1 further ask, 
whether a secondary meaning has not been established — 
controlling influence — with form of act and inness of position, 
eliminated ? And this being granted, what escape is there 
from the meaning (through appropriation to the influence of 
wine-drinking) make drunk? 

The reference to Basil — Discourse against Drunkards, iii, 
p. 452 : " So also the souls of these are driven about beneath 
the waves, being baptized by wine " — is of no value as a 
model for the interpretation of this and similar passages. 
If Basil chooses to get up a storm at sea, and depict helpless 
wretches tossed from billow to billow, while held under their 
power, unable to escape, to show the miserable results of 
luxurious living, or of excessive drinking, and to base upon 
it the conclusion, that no less overmastering and destructive 
is the power of wine over its votaries, he is at full liberty to 
do so; but, surely, they have no less liberty who choose to 
speak in unadorned language, and to declare, without a sea- 
storm, that wine drunk has the power to make drunk. If it 
should please any one to write, " As the rising sun enlightens 
the world, dissipating the darkness of the night, scattering 
its morning mists and lighting up its valleys, so education 
enlightens a people, dispelling the darkness and doubts and 
errors of ignorance," must we, therefore, find in the sober 
utterance — "he is enlightened by education," all this play of 
the imagination ? Just as much as in the statement, " I was 
yesterday baptized — made drunk — by wine," we must find 
the sea-storm of Basil, or the dipping, or whelming, or steep- 
ing of Baptist interpreters. Basil's figure is Comparison, 
ours is Metaphor. No picturing can be rationally deduced 
from such direct and naked statements as those before us. 

6. Proof may be found in Baptist translations. 

Conant translates, — "Whelm — overwhelm with wine." 
Both these words are continually used to express the highest 
degree of influence without suggesting or thinking of covering 
the object. Whether "covering" was in the mind of Br. 



90 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

C, or not, I cannot tell; but very few of his readers will feel 
themselves called upon, by this language, to tax their imagi- 
nations to find " covering" for the drunkard. Besides, the 
phrase " overwhelmed with wine " is incomplete. It is ad- 
mitted, on all bauds, that drunkenness is the ultimate thought 
designed to be expressed. But drunkenness can only be 
induced in one way — by drinking ; this, then, being under- 
stood, (ex necessitate rei,) it is unexpressed, accordiug to the 
law of ellipsis, which omits that which is most essential, and 
which, therefore, can never fail to be supplied. If a man is 
overwhelmed with wine by drinking, he is not overwhelmed 
by it as a wine billow. The translation can only express in- 
fluence, without covering. 

But Dr. Carson says, (p. 311,) "The classical meaning of 
the word is in no instance overwhelm." " Literally it is im- 
mersed in wine," (p. 79.) Two such combatants as Conant 
and Carson, the champious of contradictory meanings of 
fia-riZw, the one having emblazoned on his shield a rushing 
torrent for whelming, the other a still pool for dippiug, 
would present a field of contest which, for hard blows, might 
be expected to compare well with " the gentle passage of 
arms at Ashby." But Dr. Carson having put the druukard 
in wine, does, incontinently, take him out, declaring that 
the point of resemblance is not in the immersion at all, "but 
between a man completely under the influence of wine, and 
an object completely subjected to a liquid in which it is 
wholly immersed," (p. 80.) "There is no likeness between 
the action of drinking and immersion," (p. 79.) " The like- 
ness is between their effects," (p. 272.) Let us bring this 
likeness to a more definite point. Is wine-influence resem- 
bled to the influence exerted by immersion over any partic- 
ular object, — a stone, a ship, a bag of salt, a human being? 
As the influence in each of these cases differs, the resem- 
blance cannot be specific ; and if you eliminate that which 
is specific, you have an abstract controlling influence. AVe 
are, then, under the leadership of these Baptist translators, 
brought to this conclusion, — that there is a usage of &axri£a» 
in which resemblance rejects mode of action, rejects immer- 



TO BAPTIZE — TO MAKE DRUNK. 91 

sion, rejects specific influence, and reveals an abstract con- 
trolling influence. Their statement, then, is this : " A man 
completely under the influence of wine is a baptized man, 
because he is like an object completely subjected to a liquid 
in which it is wholly immersed — in so far as it is subjected 
to some controlling influence." A rather roundabout way of 
reaching the truth, but better such way than not at all. Now, 
this ''controlling influence," in its abstract conception, elim- 
inated from the primary use, we say, becomes concrete in a 
secondary use of j5a-:i>, capable of being conjoined with 
any word susceptible of exerting such influence, and without 
carrying with it "form of action," or "iutusposition," any 
more than specific influence, all of which have been sloughed 
off, when it assumed its abstract garb. 

The application of this word, (expressive of such secondary 
sense,) to a particular case in which the influence was inva- 
riably the same, would, necessarily, make it expressive of 
such influence. The list of influences which are single and 
invariable is but limited, — joy, grief, riches, poverty, honor, 
shame, learning, ignorance, and innumerable other sources 
of influence, do not belong to the list. Wine does; its in- 
fluence, as a drink, is one and invariable; the controlling 
influence of wine — to be baptized by wine — therefore, can 
convey but one meaning, — to make drunk. 

The examination of this passage has been thus particular, 
not on its own account, so much, as, being entirely removed 
from all direct bearing on Christian baptism, it affords a 
more favorable opportunity for the discussion of principles, 
than in a case where prejudice might be supposed to dis- 
qualify for an impartial examination. Novelties adduced 
to meet exigencies are suspicious. 



92 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

BAPTISM BY DRUNKENNESS. 

VERBAL FIGURE. 

Kai fis[ja.TTT?.G[i£vo)> efe dvata&Yjaiav xai onvov utzo tt}<; fiifys. 

Jewish Antiq.. x, 9. 

And baptized (mersed) by drunkenness into insensibility and 
sleep. 

Baptism into Insensibility and Sleep. 

" Seeing him in this state, and baptized into insensibility 
and sleep by drunkenness, Ishmael leaping up, with his ten 
friends, slays Gedaliah and those reclining with him in the 
drinking-party." 

Gedaliah was appointed to be governor over the remnant 
of the Jews after their conquest by the king of Babylon. 
This office he administered with great consideration for 
his suffering fellow-countrymen. Ishmael was of the royal 
family, and had fled from the country during its troubles, 
but was received with great kindness on his return by Geda- 
liah. At a banquet, given for the entertainment of himself 
and companions, he treacherously murdered his confiding 
benefactor, as related in the extract quoted. 

Translation. — Dr. Conant translates, "plunged into stupor 
and sleep." This translation, like that of Baptist writers 
generally, is not a translation of pa-riZw^ but one made to 
meet some accident which may pertain, or may be supposed 
to pertain, to the particular baptism in hand. Thus, a ship 
baptism is translated sub-merge, to meet the idea of going 
under ; while some other baptism is translated over-whe\m, 
to meet a supposed idea of a flood going over the object; and 
yet another is translated plunge, to meet the supposed de- 
mand of the preposition efc, which is found in the passage; 
and so on. Now these translations, evidently, neither are 
nor can be in response to the demand of /5a-r^w, but are 
modelled after some accidental features of the baptisms; 
and as these change, so the translations change, the word 



BAPTISM BY DRUNKENNESS. 93 

itself remaining ever the same. For this reason, Dr. Conant, 
having given us, heretofore, in wine baptisms the transla- 
tions "whelm and overwhelm," under the imagined pres- 
ence of a rolling torrent, now introduces " plunge," because 
of the presence of the preposition, suggesting an act passing 
into. But this is not to translate paxTilm. It has been shown 
in Classic Baptism (p. 294), that " plunge" is unsuitable to 
represent the Greek word in the case of a sleep baptism. 

Peculiarity of the passage : Verbal Figure. — Baptist writers 
salute our ears at almost every turn with the cry, Figure! 
This is a bottomless abyss, into which all difficulties about 
dipping are cast and buried out of sight. ISTot content with 
such use of the term as would enable them to say, that in 
such and such cases, the word was troped, turned from its 
primary sense to meet a special application, they convert 
" figure" into a limner with brush and pallet and water colors, 
ever ready to sketch some marine view, enlivened by a tem- 
pest, or made picturesque by a company engaged in "per- 
forming the act," without which, neither literality nor figure 
has any being. If there is a baptism by grief, the exposition 
is by a dipping into water; a baptism by study, is resolved 
by going under water; a baptism by perplexing questions, is 
met by an onrolling flood of waters; a baptism by famine, 
is illuminated by a trip to the sea and a sinking into its 
waters; a baptism by wine, is expounded by an immersion 
under the water. What magical and infinitely varied virtue 
has water, that it can, on demand, equally portray grief bap- 
tism, study baptism, question baptism, sleep baptism, wine 
baptism, famine baptism, woe of spirit, unnerved intellect, 
bewildered faculties, profound repose, utter destruction, and 
so on, even ad infinitum! Did ever conception bear, more 
boldly written upon its front, "vagary of the imagination?" 

The patent character of this error is made manifest in 
another direction. Its advocates are compelled to apply 
this florid picturing to one-half the cases in which the word 
is found in the Greek Classics. Was there ever a word in 
any language which, through centuries of use, presented an 
equally divided usage of literality and highly-wrought pic- 



94 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

turing ? There is no overboldness in saying that there never 
was, and there never will be, any such word. 

Baptist theorists must pardon us for keeping green in 
their recollection the similar attempt to divide the domain 
of fid*™ into equal parts of literality and figure, filling the 
Greek language with figurative vat-dippings as they now 
would fill it with figurative water-dippings. But these rhe- 
torical dippings have, at last, with one consent, been num- 
bered with commonplace literalities. Where, now, is panno 
used in figure ? It is extremely doubtful whether, in the 
primary sense of dipping, enough cases can be found in all 
Classic literature to require one-half the digits for their com- 
putation. If the same shall not be found true of the Classic 
use of $cltztL%u), in its primary sense, there will be a close ap- 
proximation to it. 

The passage before us not only overthrows the Baptist 
theory for figurative exposition, by torrents and floods, and 
dippings and plungings, but establishes the true form and 
nature of a figurative use of PanriZw. In every literal, pri- 
mary, baptism there is a baptizing power, a baptized object, 
and a receiving element. But in literal, primary, baptism 
we have seen that it is a matter of indifference whether the 
object is moved to secure intusposition, or whether the ele- 
ment is moved to embrace its object. In figurative baptism, 
therefore, phraseology may be adopted which shall be based 
on the one or the other of these means to a result. But 
whichever form be selected, as these baptisms are for in- 
fluential, and not for physical results, there will be neither 
movement nor investment in either case, but simply a de- 
velopment of controlling influence, the character of which 
must be derived from the elements which enter into any 
particular baptism. 

The phraseology of the baptism before us is based on the 
language which is appropriate to the movement of an object, 
in order to its being enclosed in the receiving element. In- 
asmuch as this is the first baptism, expressed in verbal figure, 
that we have encountered, (Classic Baptism presents no such 
case,) it has a just claim to our very special attention. 



BAPTISM BY DRUNKENNESS. 95 

'EfZ — Us translation. — Let ns first determine what should 
be the translation of the preposition efc, which must control 
the form of the thought. 

This preposition may denote a demand for inness of posi- 
tion, by passing into, or it may indicate the point toward 
which movement or thought tends, and at which it rests. 
Associated with verbs expressive of movement, or which 
make demand for inness of position, this preposition must 
be translated by into, unless imperative reasons can be shown 
for translating it to, unto, or for. 

That it should be translated into in this passage, we con- 
sider to be conclusively established : 

1. Because of the nature of the verb with which it is as- 
sociated. That PamiZat makes demand for intusposition, in 
primary use, is in proof. It does not indicate movement to- 
ward, or rest at, a point. The association of this preposition 
with such a word, therefore, forbids a merely telle character 
being attributed to it, and positively requires intusposition. 

2. Because the association of kindred verbs with this 
preposition does, admittedly, produce this result. Take, for 
example, the following: Ek unvov xazaneffovrwu — " Having fallen 
into sleep " ( Clem. Bom.) — not unto, nor for, sleep. Uapaneaouaa 
elq /xi6rjv — " The feast passing into, not unto, nor for, drunk- 
enness." (Clem. Alex.) Els avaa^aiav uTzoyepo/iivr] — "Carrying 
down into, not unto, nor for, insensibility." (Clem. Alex.) " In 
novam legem inducti sunt. In Evangelium inducti sunt. 
Inducted into, not unto, nor for, the new law," &c. ( Ambrose.) 

Because another translation than into may make good 
sense, or declare a true sentiment, gives no sufficient proof 
that it is accordant with the form of the phraseology, or is 
reached by the route which the phraseology suggests. These 
figurative phrases are founded in literal use. Karamvn<r6r 4 vat 
els 6akd<Tffav — " To be swallowed down into the sea, not unto, 
nor for, the sea." (Clem. Alex.) "Emergere in lucem — to 
emerge into, not unto, nor for, the light." (Teriull.) 

In every case of baptism, the baptized object passes out of 
one position or condition, and passes into another. Some- 
times both of these (always implied) are expresslj stated — 



96 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

h aouppoGuv-qq d% Ttopvelav ^anri^ooat — " They baptize out of tem- 
perance into fornication." (Clem. Alex.) So, literally, perdgets 
&x tottou els ronov — " You may lead our bodies out of one place 
into another place." (Clem. Alex.) 

These quotations are sufficient to bring into view the fact, 
that the translation contended for rests on established usage 
in kindred phrases, as also in the nature of things. Un- 
necessary departure from this usage aud requirement is with- 
out apology. 

3. Because the laws of language require, that in the trans- 
ference of words from literal to ideal relations, verbally cor- 
respondent, for the purpose of deducing a new sentiment 
from these new relations, the words must be used, indi- 
vidually, in their ordinary signification ; the thought being 
evolved from the incongruous combination. 

In such phrases — as dipping into mathematics; wallowing 
in vice ; petrified with horror; troubles rolling over us; rising 
to the occasion ; sinking unto despair — there is verbal figure ; 
that is to say, the phraseology presents the figure or form 
of a literal transaction. Each word, also, presents itself in 
its own, and not in a borrowed character. Interpreting on 
this basis, we soon encounter "a fault;" dipping will not 
carry us "into" mathematics; incongruous materials have 
been brought together, and are insusceptible of adjustment 
without some modification. Where shall it be made ? Let 
us resolve the phrase into its elements, and examine them 
separately. " Dip into" group together, and " mathema- 
tics" stands alone. Can this word be modified? It cannot 
be changed into geography, or grammar, or philosophy, for this 
would not modify the statement, but convert it into some- 
thing wholly diverse. But cannot it be imagined to be water, 
or oil, or milk, or soft clay? Not rationally ; " dipping into" 
any of these things would throw no light on dipping into 
mathematics; such imaginations would be labor lost; you 
must convert them back again into the reality. But would 
it not help to solve the meaning of such associations of 
words? Not at all; "mathematics" (or whatever else in 
like phraseological combinations may take its place) is a 



BAPTISM BY DRUNKENNESS. 97 

fixed quantity; it allows of no modification; and, because 
it does not, we are struck with the incongruous materials 
brought together, and we seek for explanation in the other 
member of the phrase. 

And, here, in " dip into," we find an every-day acquaint- 
ance, belonging to the water, or other easily penetrable sub- 
stance, to which we, thus, have ready access without any 
metamorphosis of " mathematics." Understanding the func- 
tion of " dip " to be to place its object, by a slight force, for 
a slight period of time, slightly beneath the surface, we now 
reject the idea of the fluid element and the form of action, 
as not suited to the case, and carry back "dip into" to its 
novel relation, cheerfully assuming the character — to engage 
slightly in; and, in this new character, "mathematics" 
promptly affiliates with this verb, and its satellitic preposi- 
tion. The form of verbal figure remains, and, through that 
form, the meaning may be traced by the uninformed of 
every generation ; but to say that I must go through this 
process every time I meet with such a phrase, is to talk most 
irrationally; the meaning being once established, it becomes 
the meaning of the phrase, and thenceforth gives direct ex- 
pression to the thought. The members are no longer dis- 
jecta membra, but established in organic union with a newly 
developed life. And it is the freshness of this new life, like 
the sparkle of newly opened wine, which gives the figure its 
power, and leads Carson to say, " the first use of the figure 
is the best." 

All the other phrases are to be expounded in a similar 
manner. " Vice " is not, by the force of imagination, to be 
converted into a mudhole; but from the associate member, 
through its physical relations, we adduce the idea of a bestial 
practice of vice. " Horror" is not to be changed by the force 
of imagination into a liquid holding som.e mineral in solution, 
but from " petrify," in physics, we eliminate the idea of 
" incajxicitg to use our faculties." It is at war with our con- 
sciousness, and with the laws of mind, to suppose that 
familiar combinations of this character are, or can be, treated 



98 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

as unknown quantities needing to be resolved and reduced 
to an intelligible proposition every time they are met with. 

When Josephus associates together "baptize (merse) 
into," and " insensibility and sleep," he brings together in- 
congruous materials, quite insusceptible of combination 
under a literal interpretation of individual words. But it is 
to be presumed that Josephus writes rationally ; and that 
there was a rational combination of these materials in his 
mind. Seeking to discover what this was, we find the 
phrase made up of a variable and a fixed element. " Insensi- 
bility and sleep " are fixed quantities in their own nature, and 
must remain as they are, or the life of the passage perish. 
"Baptize (merse) into" is a variable quantity: 1. As to 
form of action; 2. As to the nature of the enclosing ele- 
ment; 3. As to the character of its objects; 4. As to influ- 
ences consequent. Here is a wide field from which to select, 
or out of which to construct some modifying element. In 
seeking for such element we are led to reject, 1. Any definite 
form of action; 2. To reject the idea of intusposition, (1), be- 
cause it is impossible to apply it actually; (2) because it is just 
as impossible to conceive of it imaginatively ; (3) because 
intusposition in any liquid would be destructive to a human 
being; therefore the historian did not conceive of Gedaliah 
as put within either "insensibility or sleep" conceived of 
as liquids; (4) because any such conception is as unneces- 
sary as it is inconsistent with the nature of things. 

But while we reject intusposition as inapplicable in any 
form to " insensibility and sleep," we accept it as inherent in 
the phrase " baptize (merse) into," and we look on while it ex- 
ecutes its functions upon a flint rock, and we say, that will not 
answer; here is intusposition without influence, but the rela- 
tions in the passage exhibit influence without intusposition. 
We look on upon a second baptism, and witness a ship and 
crew go down into the sea. Here is both intusposition and 
influence, yet it is not the kind of influence; this is destruc- 
tive, that of the passage is not. We become spectators of a 
third baptism, that of a porous body put into oil and remain- 
ing there for an indefinite period; w T hen brought out it is 



BAPTISM BY DRUNKENNESS. 99 

neither like the "flint," impervious and uninfluenced; nor 
like "the ship and crew," destroyed; but it is penetrated and 
pervaded and brought thoroughly under the peculiar oily 
character of the material within which it has been placed. 
We have, at last, what the passage demands; rejecting the 
means by which the result has been secured (intusposition), 
as having no footing in the case, we have left controlling in- 
fluence, which meets all the exigencies of the passage, ren- 
dering its elements congruous and its sentiment appropriate. 

From all which we draw these conclusions : 1. 'Banr^cD efc, 
when used in relations not admitting of intusposition, but 
of influence, drops the former idea and expresses directly the 
idea of controlling influence. 2. Intusposition is limited to the 
verb and its preposition, and is to be applied (1) To their 
physical relations, that out of it may be extracted the thought 
demanded by the passage; and (2) As suggesting, by their 
verbal form and present relations, the source and character 
of the developed influence. 3. The conversion of these 
terms, expressive of influence endlessly varied, into one 
imaginary fluid, is absurd, because one fluid could not ex- 
press varied influences; to convert them into diverse fluids 
is no less absurd, because no fluids could express the dis- 
tinctive character of the influences. 4. The term expressive 
of the source and nature of the influence to be expressed, 
must remain without change. Its duty is exhausted when, 
at the demand of ^a-Kri^w ei<; 9 it communicates its distinctive 
influence in all the fulness of its power. 

When Gedaliah was " baptized (mersed) into insensibility 
and sleep," he was, according to the legitimate and only 
rational interpretation of the verbal figure, brought tinder the 
controlling influence of insensibility and sleep. 

4. Why employ verbal figure? Not merely, or mainly, for 
rhetorical embellishment, but to limit, and define with pre- 
cision, the thought intended to be conveyed. BanztZw ex- 
presses, definitely, the condition of intusposition ; but the 
effects of intusposition are various, and it cannot express 
these influences distinctively; it takes, therefore, secondarily, 
that which is common to all these influences, namely, con- 



100 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

trolling power. When the word is used in this sense, it takes 
its coloring from its adjunct. Sometimes, as already stated, 
this is single and invariable, (as in the direct influence of 
wine,) in which case it becomes the absolute measure and 
representative of that particular influence. But where di- 
verse influences proceed from the same source, it is not 
sufficiently explicit to speak of a baptism from that source 
while wishing to express some one of its influences. This 
can only be done by express statement, which will take the 
form in the passage under consideration — verbal figure — elz 
being employed, with the proper word, to denote the source 
and specific character of the influence desired. Thus, while 
the influence of wine is specific, that of drunkenness is diver- 
sified. It may baptize into shame, or poverty, or crime, or 
many other things. Josephus wished to express a specific 
result of this baptism ; therefore, he says, not merely, " bap- 
tized by drunkenness," but "baptized by drunkenness into 
insensibility and sleep. 9 ' The passage is important as being 
rare in its form, (never met with in the classics,) and now 
first appearing. It is, also, eminently instructive, throwing 
its light both backward and forward, along the path of this 
inquiry. "We shall meet with it again, under noticeable cir- 
cumstances, before we get through. It expresses influence in 
the most specific manner and in the most perfect measure. 



CEREMONIAL PURIFICATION. 
BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING HEIFER ASHES. - 

Tabs oov arcb vexpou psptaapivou^y rr t q ricpaq SXtyov etc TrqyijV ivtivres xa\ 
vffffioxov, fiaTTTiffavTez re xat r^c ricppaq rauzrjq elq ~T t yr t v, eppaivuv rptr/] 

xat ij3d6py] rcov jjfiep&v. Jewish Antiq., iv, 4. 

" Those, therefore, defiled by a dead body, introducing a little of 
the ashes and by ssop-b ranch into a spring, and baptizing of 
this ashes (introduced) into the spring, they sprinkled both 
on the third and seventh of the days." 



BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. 101 



APPROPRIATION. 



The ritual observance referred to in this extract, is de- 
scribed in the book of lumbers, chap. xix. " He that toucheth 
a dead body shall be unclean seven days. lie shall purify 
himself with it (the heifer ashes) on the third day, and on 
the seventh day he shall be clean. . . . This is the law. . . . 
They shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purifica- 
tion for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel: 
And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, 
and sprinkle it upon him that toucheth one dead. . . . But 
the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, 
that soul shall be cut off from the congregation, because the 
water of purification has not been sprinkled upon him; he is 
unclean." 

Reference is made to this rite, as to its nature, purpose, 
and mode of performance, in Hebrews, 9 : 13. "For if . . . 
the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to 
the purifying of the flesh." ... % 

The occasion which induced the historian to refer to the 
rite, was the purification of the people consequent upon the 
death of Miriam, sister of Moses. Philo, the Jew, quoted 
by President Beecher, also refers to this rite in the following 
language : " Moses does this philosophically, for most others 
are sprinkled with unmixed water, some with sea or river 
water, others w T ith water drawn from the fountains. But 
Moses employed ashes for this purpose. Then, as to the 
manner, they put them into a vessel, pour on water, then 
moisten branches of hyssop with the mixture, then sprinkle 
it upon those who are to be purified." 

These quotations from Moses, and Paul, and Philo, and 
Josephus, place this ordinance before us in all its character- 
istics, in the clearest manner. It is an ordinance which con- 
templates persons as being in a certain state, or condition, 
and proposes to take them out of that state, or condition, 
and to put them into another; or, to speak more definitely, 
it regards persons as being in a state of ceremonial defile- 
rnent, and proposes to change that state by the application 



102 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

of a peculiar purifying influence, and so bring them into a 
state of ceremonial purity. 

The elements, then, which claim attention are, 1. A state 
of ceremonial defilement; 2. A state of ceremonial purifica- 
tion; 3. Ashes, (mixed with spring-water as a vehicle,) the 
purifying agency; 4. Sprinkling, the mode of applying. 

By the ordinance, possessed of such features, a baptism 
was effected, according to the declaration of Josephus, " bap- 
tizing them of ashes by sprinkling." The task before us is 
to harmonize the use of baptize with "ashes/' (when no en- 
velopment and consequent smothering takes place,) and with 
"sprinkling," with which it is said to be irreconcilable. 
The discussion, herein involved, demands, first of all, the 
determination of the fundamental character of the Greek 
word. 

If this word does express "a definite act, dip, and nothing 
but dip, and has no other meaning through all Greek litera- 
ture," then our task is ended before commenced; for no one, 
not moonstruck, would attempt to perform the act of dipping 
by the help of "ashes," or the modal act of dipping, by the 
alien modal act of sprinkling. If, however, this word is no 
more a word modally executive than darkness is light, but 
demands for its object state, or condition, characterized, pri- 
marily, by envelopment, subject to development under the 
laws of language, and modification under the exigencies of 
usage, like all other words, then, it will hardly be regarded 
as proof of hopeless lunacy to attempt to show, that a man 
brought into a thoroughly changed state by the sprinkling of 
ashes-water, may be called a "baptized" man. 

The true import of this word has been discussed, at large, 
in Classic Baptism. For the conclusions there reached, so 
far as they are my own, I ask no deference to be paid by any 
Baptist scholar; but inasmuch as many of the first scholars 
of the country have made these conclusions their own, by a 
cordial approval, I feel bound to affirm their judgment, and 
to say, that it is a settled point, that /?<mttiC«» does not belong to 
the class of verbs which expresses modal action, but to the 
class of verbs making demand for state, or condition. 



BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. 103 

It has been shown that the characteristic state, or condi- 
tion, secured for its object by PaxriZw, was one calculated to 
exert over such object the most thorough, penetrating, per- 
vading, and controlling influence; and that, as a matter of 
fact, it did (exceptional cases aside) exert such influence. 

It has been shown that these resultant influences varied 
greatly in their character, according to the nature of the 
object and of the investing element, while they retained the 
common feature as to the measure of influence, namely, con- 
trolling power. 

It has, also, been shown, and it is a vital point, determin- 
ing the whole usage of the word, that to this state, or con- 
dition induced, there is no limitation of time; the object 
may be taken out of such condition, but only by a force 
counteracting and overcoming the work of fiairctZa). 

Such are the outstanding features in the physical history 
of this word. 

To bring this word of great power, of wide range, and of 
facile adaptation, out of the world of physics, and to intro- 
duce it into the wider realm of metaphysics — of mind and 
morals — as applicable to the many and varied cases of con- 
trolling influence there to be met with, required only an 
extension of the manner in which the influence should be 
exerted. That is to say, when the intellectual or moral con- 
dition of persons or things was to be changed by any in- 
fluence competent to exert a controlling power, but not 
adapted to influence through envelopment, or the object not 
adapted to receive influence through such method of opera- 
tion, then such change of condition, however effected, should 
be equally expressed by that same word which, in physics, 
expressed thorough change of condition, through envelop- 
ment. Baptist writers do not deny the extension of the word 
beyond physics ; but they say the meaning of the word re- 
mains unchanged. 

The domain of error is a wide one, and furnishes many 
roads along which its subjects may travel. Our Baptist 
friends having laid down a principle, rather to burden others 
than to govern themselves, show neither agreement nor con- 



104 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

sistency in maintaining it. Those who insist that the word 
means modal act should, in obedience to their principle, 
carry a dipping through all the metaphysical usage of the 
word. Dr. Carson attempts it; but even his courage fails, 
and after appealing, most unreasonably, to figure for aid, 
gives up, times without number, and asks, "Is not the re- 
semblance between the effects?" Those who insist on modal 
act, (but inconsistently allow of half a dozen,) run through 
the catalogue, dipping, plunging, sinking, whelming, sub- 
merging, and overwhelming, mind and spirit; yet all will 
not do; they, too, have to fall back on results, to the abandon- 
ment of acts. Some, in their extremity, when hard pressed 
summon "intusposition" to their aid; but if the word is ex- 
pressive of an act, it is not expressive of intusposition, — a 
condition; and an appeal to this, is abandonment of " one 
meaning " alike in physics and in metaphysics. Nor am I 
alone in making this affirmation. Hear the language of a 
tried friend: "The baptism" (dipping) "and the state that 
follows have no necessary connection." (Carson, p. 287.) 

"Nothing can exceed the absurdity of supposing that the 
word should designate both the immersion," {dipping, in Dr. 
C.'s vocabulary,) "and the state after immersion." (Carson, 
p. 283.) Baptists, then, must make their choice (their great 
controversialist being judge,) between act and state ; but if 
they choose " act" for physics, and insist on the same mean- 
ing (only in figure), through all metaphysical usage, they 
must not slip in " absurdity," state, to help them out of a 
dilemma. If they choose " state," then they must abandon 
" act," as also the theory on which they have builded up 
their system, and reconstruct it after another model. 

From the utter failure of Baptist writers to carry " the 
same meaning " from physical to metaphysical relations 
(when the life of their most cherished theory depended on 
its being done), we may draw the conclusion, that the de- 
mand that this should be done is a false and impracticable 
one. 

We doing avowedly and of free will what they do covertly 
and compulsorily, occupy the vantage-ground of harmony 



BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. 105 

with the laws of language-development, generally, and in 
the most eminent manner, with that closely related word 
/?drrw, which expressing originally dipping, (with coloring as a 
result,) subsequently expresses coloring without the dipping. 

So, paxriZa*, originally expressing in physics, intusposition 
(having influence as a result); passing into another realm, 
where intusposition has no place, expresses change of con- 
dition from influence without the intusposition. Therefore, 
in the application of this word to mental and moral relations, 
we say, that the idea of a condition unlimited as to duration 
and controlling influence, is retained, while the form of that 
condition, causative of controlling influence, is dropped: 1. 
Because there is no possibility for it as a reality; 2. Because 
the imagination must fail in its efforts to invest with any 
suitable medium, and would only perpetrate a great folly if 
it could; 3. Because the conceit which would invest spiritual 
objects with physical elements, in order to exhibit influence 
exerted over them, is an absurdity. 

With this general idea of the meaning of the word, and 
of the method by which that meaning is reached, it becomes 
our duty to show that the word is used in such meaning in 
the passage before us. 

Translation. — " Baptizing of (by) this ashes (introduced) 
into the spring, they sprinkled (the defiled)." 

" Baptizing," denotes here, as everywhere, the bringing 
into a new state or condition, which may be with or without 
intusposition. In this case without intusposition. The ob- 
ject has been in a state of ceremonial impurity; it is brought 
into a state of ceremonial purity. This translation agrees 
with our definition, is indicated by more than a score of cases 
in Classic Baptism, is in full sympathy with the scope of the 
passage, accords with the grammatical structure, and is de- 
manded by the exigency of the case. 

"Ashes" constitute the instrumental agency of the bap- 
tism. Ashes are capable of constituting a physical envelop- 
ment, as Ilerculaneum and Pompeii abundantly testily; but 
what then ? Does the passage require or allow of such en- 
velopment? Just as much as many other envelopments 



106 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

which we are called upon to tax our imaginations to picture. 
Wine baptizes, and wine is capable of enveloping as well as 
water; but does wine, where it effects a drunken baptism, 
envelop its object? Is it not absurd to conceive of it as so 
doing, inasmuch as it would destroy the baptism contem- 
plated, and effect another, wholly different, — a drowning 
baptism ? Wine envelopment (as in the case of the Duke 
of Clarence), kills; and ashes envelopment (as in the case 
of Pompeii), kills. Wine drank, baptizes by bringing into 
a condition of intoxication. Heifer ashes sprinkled, baptize 
by bringing into a condition of purification. 

Ashes are as competent to baptize, all Greek writers bear- 
ing witness, as are the mountain billows of the ocean. The 
nature of the baptisms differ; but so do baptisms of" armor 
in marshes," of " a bag of salt " in water, and of a man who 
swallows " an opiate." If it will give any aid or comfort to 
friends of " the theory," they are welcome to bring imagina- 
tion into full play, and to " figure " these falling drops of the 
watery mixture, into the peltings of a storm, or the rushing 
of a torrent, or the dashing of burstiug billows, and so form, 
according to the established mode, a well-approved " whelm- 
ing;" only, after this play of ideality, come back to the sober 
confession, that heifer ashes do baptize. " Whatever influ- 
ence is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state, 
or condition of an object, controlling and conforming it to 
its own characteristics, is capable of baptizing that object." 
(Classic Baptism, p. 354.) Heifer ashes are capable of 
effecting such change in the condition of a ceremonially 
unclean man, and is, therefore, capable of baptizing such 
man. 

"Sprinkling" this ashes is as competent to baptize into 
ceremonial purity, as drinking wine is capable of baptizing 
into drunkenness, or eating opium into sleep, or the falls of 
Niagara into their seething depths. The right arm of Bap- 
tist argumentation against "sprinkling," is, here, broken. 
We know nothing of "one definite act" or " many definite 
acts" or " some general act;" we make demand for condition, 
and, by that badge, as the servitors of /5a--^w ? every act, mo- 



BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. 107 

clal or immodal, few or many, as well as sweeping torrents, 
falling billows, rising floods, sprinkling drops, in short, what- 
ever is capable of thoroughly changing condition. 

The amount of influence which shall belong to this baptiz- 
ing agency, and the form through which that influence shall 
find development, belong solely to the will of Him who lias 
established the rite. Under his appointment " sprinkling " 
is as competent and as every way adapted, to exhaust the 
divinely ordained influence, and convey it to the defiled ob- 
ject, and to change its condition by accomplishing the most 
thorough purification, as any other conceivable mode. 

Ashes, then, are the baptizing agency, the sole agency; 
the spring-water was not used as an auxiliary in effecting the 
baptism, but merely as a vehicle for the transmission of the 
ashes; Philo, and Josephus, and Paul, speak of nothing 
but " the ashes." Sprinkling is the mode through which, by 
divine appointment, the baptizing agency operates. And 
ceremonial purification is the changed condition, state, baptism, 
accomplished. 

I only add here another remark. The use of parM^m to 
develop and express the power of these sprinkled heifer 
ashes, places it in a relation so identical in its features with 
that which it occupies when expounding the power of wine- 
drinking, that the influence exerted over the word must be 
the same in both cases. Each of these agencies exerts a spe- 
cific influence, also, a single, invariable, and controlling in- 
fluence; now, when, pa-riZw is employed to express the 
changed condition effected by wine-drinking, (which condi- 
tion was of frequent occurrence and invariably the same,) it 
could not be without a miracle, but that it must become 
identified with the specialty of that condition, and secure the 
meaning, — -to make drunk. In like manner, used to expound 
the changed condition effected by this purifying rite, — spe- 
cific in its character, and frequent in its occurrence, — a mira- 
cle, only, could prevent its absorbing that peculiarity, and 
expressing directly, — to make ceremonially pure. 

Thus these two meanings, to make drunk and to make pure, 
so widely diverse in their nature, would, as legitimately as 



108 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

certainly, attach themselves to this word in these varying 
spheres of usage. 

FRIENDS OF " THE THEORY" NOT SATISFIED. 

Unimpeachable as this exposition may appear, it would be 
strange if it should be acceptable to the friends of the Bap- 
tist theory. Its acceptance would as hopelessly baptize their 
system, as the departure of Josephus would have baptized 
Jotapata, and with the same kind of ruinous baptism. 

Let us look at their objections. 

1. As to the text. It is said to be corrupted. Bonfrer sug- 
gests the Omission Of, re xou rrjq xicppac, ravrr t q eiq xrffrjv. This 

suggestion is accepted by Bekker and the text of his edition 
made to conform to it. Dr. Conant, also, adopts this read- 
ing. Hudson, Principal of St. Mary's Hall, Oxford, and a 
critical editor of Josephus, refers to this criticism, but retains 
the passage. He farther states, that some copies have nerd 
after ^anriaavzeq. The ground of this supposed corruption, 
as stated, is, "the evident repetition of some words." But 
where a good reason exists for the repetition of words, there 
is no just ground furnished for the notion of corruption. Any 
appearance of such words not being needed may arise from 
a misconception of the passage. 

The reading alluded to by Hudson is opposed to the idea 
of any needed omission. A proper translation may relieve 
the passage of any apparent incumbrance. The introduc- 
tion of Taurrjz, shows not mere repetition, but gives proof of 
design. This textual difficulty brings to mind another case 
of embarrassment, in which relief was sought by complaint 
of the text. I refer to the passage in Plutarch, Life of Alex- 
ander, lxvii, in which the drunken revelry of the army is de- 
scribed. (Classic Baptism, p. 335.) Du Soul, under the idea 
that a dipping must be got out of fianriC*, questions the read- 
ing, — pairriZovTeq kx rUdw ; but it would have been better, in 
view of the syntax, to have questioned the correctness of the 
meaning attached to the word. Coray proposes to let the text 
stand and to interpret by the help of figure. The construc- 
tion of the two passages is similar, — the verb with the geui- 



BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. 109 

tive. It would be not a little remarkable under these cir- 
cumstances, that the text, both of Plutarch and Joscphus, 
should have been corrupted and after precisely the same 
style. The baptizing influence proceeds out of the wine in 
the one case, and out of the ashes in the other case. 

The evidence for corruption, certainly, is not very impres- 
sive. 

Punctuation. — But fault is found not merely with the words 
of the passage, but, also, with the punctuation. Carson (p. 
288-9) says, " The punctuation of Josephus is evidently 
wrong. . . The comma ought to be before hyssop." He trans- 
lates, "Having cast a little of the ashes into the fountain, 
and having dipped a branch of hyssop and also a little of the 
same ashes into," &c. Having denied that evtivre<- could im- 
merse (dip) the ashes, both because of its own nature, being 
a " generic term," and because of the nature of ashes, which 
"cast" into water floats on the surface; and having trans- 
lated PaTtTtaaurces dipping, according to the demand of theory, 
(notwithstanding that "ashes floats on the surface,") he 
makes provision to help this latter word to do what the 
other could not do (dip ashes), by putting them, first, " into 
a bag, as in cookery." Surely this " dipping " is a thorny 
road to travel. First, it denies the laws of language-de- 
velopment; then, it fills Greek literature with imaginary 
dippings and whelmings, torrents and floods; then, it affirms 
corruption of text; then, errors of punctuation; and, last of 
all, requires the manufacture of a bag to be filled with ashes, 
in order that it may be dipped, like a pudding in cookery ! 
Could any testimony be more conclusive that there is no 
dipping in the case, than the necessity for resorting to such 
a method in order to secure its introduction ? But not only 
does this passage, in particular, reject a dipping, but there 
is no authority, in the general usage of the word, for trans- 
muting PaicriZw into fid-zw. The word and the construction 
alike protest against such an abuse. It puts, most lawlessly, 
w r ords and syntax to the rack. The received text and punc- 
tuation may stand, unaltered, under a proper conception and 
translation of the passage. 



110 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

Translation. — While Carson retains the common text, and 
runs into the extravagances just indicated, Conant adopts 
the modification proposed, and, by an altered punctuation, 
unites grammatically, dggio-kov i3a-rl<ravrsq, dipping the hyssop- 
branch. Provision has been already made for putting the 
hyssop into the ashes-water; therefore, this new arrange- 
ment is uncalled for. There is no authority, but it is against 
all authority, to make fiaxTi^a) perform the office of a dipper 
either of wine-cups or of hyssop-branches. Besides, it is an 
axiom with all Baptists, that a baptized object must be wholly 
covered; but there is no evidence, and it is contrary to reason 
and the use to which it was to be put, to suppose that this 
branch was put into, so as to be wholly covered by the mix- 
ture, whether made in a vessel, as stated by the Scriptures, 
or in a spring, as supposed to be stated by Josephus. The 
translation — "Introducing a little of the ashes and the 
hyssop into spring-water, then baptizing (purifying) by this 
ashes (put) into spring-water, they sprinkled the defiled" — 
not only does not betray any excess of words, but those re- 
peated words, standing in an entirely new relation and ex- 
pressing a wholly different truth, do, and are used in order 
to, give fulness and precision to the explanation of the rite. 
The facts stated are, 1. The mixture of ashes and spring- 
water; 2. The dipping of a hyssop-branch into this mixture; 
3. The purification of the people by the ashes, which im- 
parted their virtue to the water ; 4. The mode of applying 
the ashes to the people by sprinkling. 

The very pith and point of the passage lies precisely in 
those very words which are to be "improved" out of the 
text. Josephus states that the purifying (baptizing) was 
"by the ashes." The very point on which Philo, as well as 
a greater than Philo or Josephus, even Paul himself, insists. 
It is "the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, which 
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh." (Heb. 9 : 13.) As 
to the translation of pamiZw, to purify ceremonially, let me 
again, most pointedly, state, that it is no nameless foundling 
brought forward for the nonce, to lay claim, under false pre- 
tences, to a heritage in which it has no right; but it is the 



BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. Ill 

offspring of lawful wedlock, with title to legitimacy running 
back through all Classic records, until, in deep antiquity, 
it meets the ancient ^arM^m yet in his bachelor days. The 
genealogical tree is deposited in court and open to the ex- 
amination of all comers. 

If the view now presented be correct, there is deep sig- 
nificance in the words of Carson (p. 62) : " The language of 
no writer can have more authority on this subject than that 
of Josephus. A Jew, who wrote in the Greek language in 
the apostolic age, must be the best judge of the meaning of 
Greek words employed by Jews in his own time." That 
sounds like the truth. And we are here introduced, by a 
competent witness, to the Jewish usage of fianT&w^ by one 
who has shown himself to be the perfect master of its Classic 
usage through all its modifications. This witness testifies, 
that the Jews used /?a-n> to express the baptism (purifica- 
tion) by heifer ashes, of defiled persons, by sprinkling it upon 
them, thus bringing them into a state of ceremonial purifica- 
tion ; and excluding, most absolutely, all idea of a dipping 
or a covering. Asa seal to this interpretation I close with 
the following quotation from Cyril of Alexandria on Isaiah 

4 : 4, " (js[ja-T(a;j.z6a fiev yap ouz iv udart yu/iva), aXX obdk ffTrodo) datidXewq, 

We have been baptized not with bare water, nor yet by the 

ASHES OF A HEIFER." 

This settles the attempt to "correct the text," by settling 
the sufficiency of heifer ashes to baptize. Inasmuch as there 
was not to be any Pompeii baptism (deadly suffocation under 
ashes sprinkled "long enough to cover"), there was no in- 
tusposition in this baptism; and as the only other baptism 
within the competency of these sprinkled ashes, was a bap- 
tism of ceremonial purification, we must even be satisfied 
with this, theories notwithstanding. 



112 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 



BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. 

Ba-Kri^op.svoq drrd vsxpou xai ndXtv aTtropevoq aorou, xi dxpiX-qasv zw Xoorpip 
auTou. Sirach, 34 : 30. 

Being baptized from a dead body, and touching it again, what 
is he benefited by his cleansing ? 

Baptism from the Dead. 

The phraseology of this passage differs, materially, from 
the preceding. It is, in itself considered, much less definite. 
The word ^anr'^u) never declares the performance of any defi- 
nite act, and not being limited to physical results, it cannot, 
alone, declare any definite result. The phrase ^aicri^oiievoq axd 
vexpou cannot, without knowledge derived from other sources, 
convey any definite and complete idea. This is proved from 
the insuperable difficulty attending the interpretation of the 
phrase, /3a7rri^6p.£vot bizkp tu>v vexpw (1 Cor. 15 : 28). The phrase 
not being self-explanatory, and the context not clearly indi- 
cating the bearing designed by the Apostle, and the possible 
interpretations being legion, no exposition has been given, 
or perhaps, can be given, which will command assent. The 
verbal resemblance to the passage before us is striking, and 
it is within the range of possibility, that both refer to the 
same thing; but this is not very probable. Clear knowledge 
outside of the passage, is now, perhaps, beyond our reach. 
This embarrassment, however, is eminently instructive. The 
Greek word, of itself, is dumb with silence to any inquiry as 
to its relations to physics or metaphysics; and as in both 
these relations it is controlled in specialties of form and effect, 
by things outside of itself, it is absolutely necessary, in the 
interpretation of any given case, to know, 1. In general, 
whether the baptism belongs to the real or the ideal. 2. And, 
in special, what is the baptizing agency or element. With- 
out such knowledge no baptism can receive intelligent inter- 
pretation. But this baptism of the Son of Sirach presents 
no embarrassment, because, while his own language does 
not give the needful information, we can get it from other 



BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 113 

sources. By a comparison with Numbers xix, we learn that 
the baptism is connected with a particular rite for purifica- 
tion; by a reference to Josephus, (J. A. iv, 4,) we learn that 
the agency in this baptism was heifer ashes, and the mode of 
its use was sprinkling; by a reference to Josephus, (J. A. x,9,) 
we farther learn, by analogy, that the verbal element of such 
baptism is xa6apt<r/j.6v i as drunkenness baptizes into a state of 
insensibility, so heifer ashes baptize into a state of ceremo- 
nial purity. 

Thus we have all the materials requisite for the most pre- 
cise determination of this baptism, — " being baptized from 
the defilement of a dead body," by heifer ashes, into a state 
of ceremonial purity. 

As to the absolute use of paitrgatj (agency and element 
eliminated,) and the value to be attached to it in such use, 
we receive all needed information by turning to analogous 
cases. Such is that in Classic Baptism, p. 331, — " I am one 
of those yesterday baptized." Here, there is not a ray of 
light thrown on the nature of the baptism, beyond the fact 
that it was not destructive of life; with this limitation imagi- 
nation may range ad libitum among pools, torrents, and floods, 
on the one hand, and states of insensibility, sleep, and puri- 
fication, on the other. The context, however, clips these 
pinions by revealing a wine-influence — baptism into a state 
of drunkenness by wine-drinking — and, thus, we learn that 
the frequent use of this marked word, in connection with in- 
toxication, rendered unnecessary the constant repetition of the 
verbal element, or the agency, but that both were absorbed 
in and expressed by the, now, enriched and pregnant word 
PaxTtZat, — "I was yesterday bn])t\zed=made drunk," In like 
manner, under a similar condition of things, arising from the 
use of this word in this religious rite, it absorbs the verbal 
element, (purification,) and the baptizing agency, (heifer 
ashes,) and out of this fulness is enabled, in absolute use, to 
give a new utterance, — "being baptized=?n«c/e ceremmially 
pure from a dead body." 

Thus, in this abbreviated, absolute use, we have the most 
conclusive evidence for the familiar, long-continued, and well- 

8 



114 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

understood use of fta-xT^a) in connection with purifying rites, 
and coming to express directly, without any aid, the end of 
such rites, namely, to make ceremonially -pure. This usage, 
and this its necessary result, is confirmed by the historical 
fact, that between the Son of Sirach and Josephus, was a 
period of some two hundred years, and between Josephus 
and Cyril of Alexandria, (who, as we have seen, employs 
the word in the same manner,) there is an interval of twice 
two hundred years. Familiar and long-continued usage made 
the word, without adjunct, plain. 

The absorption of one or more phrases by a single word, 
which thenceforward becomes the representative and spokes- 
man of all, is a common development of language. " He 
drinks" was once but a member of the sentence, — " He drinks 
intoxicating liquors to drunkenness," but, " to drunkenness " was 
first dropped as sufficiently expressed in, — "He drinks intoxi- 
cating liquors;" after a long familiarity with this abbreviation, 
it became possible to make farther abbreviation, and, "He 
drinks" became perfectly competent to express the whole 
sentence, and did, absolutely used, express, — He makes him- 
self drank. 

When, therefore, we say that /Sa-r^o/xevos, in this passage 
is a pregnant word, has put on a new character, has attained 
a secondary meaning, we set up no new statute, but are 
overshadowed by the protecting and vindicating power of 
common law. It may be used alone—" being purified," or 
with the cause of purification — "being purified by heifer 
ashes" or with the addition of the special cause of defile- 
ment — "being purified by heifer ashes from a dead body." 
In this there is no figure. Verbal figure would require a 
recasting of the phrase, thus: "being baptized (mersed) by 
heifer ashes, from a dead body into purification;" thus we 
return to primary signification, and " baptize (merse)" is em- 
ployed to develop the full influence of "purification;" when 
"into purification" is dropped, "baptize" becomes impreg- 
nated with its influence, gives direct expression to it, and all 
appearance of figure has disappeared. "Words which must 
appear as tropical to a learner of a distant age, who acquires 



BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 115 

the language by the help of grammars and dictionaries, may 
have totally lost that appearance to the natives." 

Aoorpuj. 

There is one feature of this passage which is not exhibited 
by that in Josephus. It is found in the introduction of 
Xourpp, in connection with this baptism. On the ground of 
the use of this word, and the appointment of a washing 
(Xumbers, 19: 19) subsequent to the purification by sprink- 
ling " the water of separation," Baptist writers have claimed 
that there was a dipping in the rite, and that, on the ground 
of this feature, the word " baptize" is used to describe it by 
Josephus and others. 

This position requires us to examine, 1. Whether there 
was any " dipping" in the law of the rite. 2. Whether there 
is any " dipping" in the word which originates this interpre- 
tation. ' 

In answer to the first of these points, it may be declared, 
in the most unqualified manner, that no dipping is required by 
the law of the rite. There is none in the original text, nor is 
there any in the Septuagint translation. The English trans- 
lation, "bathe in water," is greatly more limited in mode 
and measure of using the water, than is that of the Septua- 
gint, louaerat udarc, (wash with water;) and in so far as it strait- 
ens, directly, or by implication, the manner of using the 
water, or gives definiteness to the quantity to be employed, 
it departs from the original. The evidence for this so utterly 
excludes all other view, that the friends of "the theory" do 
not, directly, deny it; but content themselves with saying, 
that " a washing" maybe effected by a dipping. Suppose 
this to be true, of what avail is it to explain the presence of 
" baptize?" If a dipping may be a "washing;" the act of 
dipping can never be metamorphosed into the state of bap- 
tism. As there is no "dipping" in the Jewish law, so there 
is none in the allusions, by Jews, to the fulfilment of the 
law. Philo says nothing of "dipping" in speaking of the 
rite, but refers, exclusively, to the sprinkled ashes. 

Josephus gives no hint of a "dipping," but ascribes the 



116 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

purification exclusively to the ashes sprinkled. Cyril, (not 
a Jew, but a student of the law,) says nothing of a " dipping." 
Must it not betoken great extremity when, under such cir- 
cumstances, this modal act is attempted to be fastened on 
the rite, and not only so, but to subject all other features so 
absolutely as to subordinate them to itself, and obliterate the 
divinely appointed title, " sprinkling the water of separation," 
and substitute in its stead dipping into water, of a wholly 
different character? Can "the theory" carry its votaries 
any farther? 

But, let us inquire more closely into this " washing." Was 
it any constituent, at all, in the purification from defilement 
contracted by " touching a dead body ? " We say not : 1. Be- 
cause the priest who prepared the ashes was required "to 
wash his clothes and flesh with water and be unclean till 
even." He had not touched the dead body. 2. He that 
burned the heifer was required " to wash his clothes and flesh 
with water and be unclean till the even." He had not touched 
the dead body. 3. He that gathered the ashes was required, 
"to wash his clothes and be unclean until the even." He 
had not touched the dead body. 4. He that sprinkled the 
water of separation was required "to wash his clothes, and 
he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean till 
even." Neither of these had touched the dead body. When, 
now, he who had touched a dead body, and had received the 
appointed means of purification, (the sprinkling of the ashes,) 
was subsequently required, (in common with all others who 
had been employed in preparing and dispensing, or acciden- 
tally touching this ashes,) "to wash his clothes and flesh," is 
it not most irrational to consider this as any element in " the 
purification from a dead body" since it was common to all 
others, with himself, who had not touched a dead body ? 

The truth is, that while "the water of separation" had the 
power "to purify from a dead body," yet in another aspect 
it had itself the power to make unclean; and therefore, while 
cleansing from one impurity, its very application made 
another, and wholly different, cleansing necessary. 

That the sole cleansing power "from a dead body" be- 



BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 117 

longed to the heifer ashes, is evident from Hebrews, 9-13 14 
"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a 
heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of 
the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ . . purge 
your conscience from dead works." The blood of sacrificial 
victims and the ashes of a blood-red heifer symbolized the 
blood of Christ; the one cleansed ceremonially and typically 
the other cleansed spiritually and efficiently; neither required 
supplementary aid for the perfect accomplishment of their 
allotted functions. It is, then, an incidental washing, not 
pertaining to the purification effected by the sprinkling, which 
Baptist interpreters would introduce into the rite, giving to 
it a name which converts the law-appointed baptism by 
sprinkled ashes into a lawless dipping into water. Dr. Car- 
son has but little countenance from the law and testimony 
tor his translation,-- He that dippeth or baptizeth himself be- 
cause of a dead body, and toucheth it again, what availeth 
hi! ^dipping or baptism?" (p. 66.) lie not only falls into the 
philological heresy which confounds "baptizing" and "dip- 
ping," but extends it to Xo6a>, making it, by a double error 
nrst a dipping, then a baptism. 

If the view now presented be correct, all attempt to ex- 
clude the baptism as contained in and effected by the ashes 
and to transfer it to the appended " washing," falls to the 
ground; because it was but a sequence to the purifying bap- 
tism by sprinkling, and not a part of the rite; it was some- 
thing to be done after, and as a consequence of the baptism 
and consequently can bear no part in its explanation. 

Aour^-dipping. But let us more particularly examine 
this word, which is said so distinctly to proclaim a dipping. 
Dr. Gale says, " The Hebrew word expressing the wash- 
ing required, < always includes dipping, and never signifies 
le^s.' ' Dr. Carson says, « The Greek word translating the 
Hebrew, requires an immersion of its object— complete cover- 
ing by the fluid." 

The rash and erroneous statements made, by those who 
should know better, touching vital points of this controversy 
are most remarkable. 



118 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

The statement by Gale, respecting the Hebrew word for 
washing, is without any adequate foundation. In many cases, 
the manner of washing is not indicated by circumstances, 
and the word itself, not expressing mode, we cannot have 
any certain knowledge in regard to the mode. Others are 
more explicit, either from the nature of the case, or from 
circumstances mentioned. 

In Gen. 43 : 31, Joseph is said to have " washed his face," 
after weeping. If this was done by dipping, he was, most 
probably, the only one in Egypt who followed that mode of 
face washing. It is, indeed, possible to dip the face and thus 
wash it ; and it is possible to dip the beard and dye it ; but 
Dr. Carson thinks this so unreasonable, while not impos- 
sible, that he makes it a ground for affirming a secondary 
meaning of iSdnru). Here the improbability is just as great, 
and yet, to help on " the theory," we are asked to believe 
that an immodal verb has become modal, and forced the great 
ruler of Egypt to dip his face to wash off the tear-marks. 
This abuse in the interpretation of the word, is made more 
evident in the translation of the Septuagint, where it is rep- 
resented by viTtTio ) a word which Dr. Carson says, " does not 
mean to dip." 

In Deut. 21 : 6, certain persons are directed to " wash their 
hands over the heifer." When we remember that jLlisha 
" poured water on the hands of Elijah," and that here, too, 
the Septuagint translates by v6rra», there is but little encour- 
agement given to a " dipping." In 1 Kings 22 : 38, the 
armor of Ahab, after battle, being stained with blood, was 
washed. Is it so necessary and so universal a custom to dip 
armor, in order to wash blood off from it, that this modal act 
must be accepted without questioning? 

When such cases are of every-day occurrence, why is it 
that Dr. Gale ventures to lay down such a proposition, — this 
washing always includes dipping f 

Dr. Carson's claim, that the Greek word requires always, 
" an immersion" — " a complete covering" of the object — is 
not more accurate. 

In Acts 9 : 37, the body of Dorcas, after death, was " washed 



BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 119 

and laid in an upper chamber." Was this a case of " im- 
mersion and complete covering ?" In Acts 16 : 33, the jailor 
took Paul and Silas and " washed their stripes." If this was 
by " dipping," it may be put alongside of the dipping of 
Joseph's lace ; being modelled after the same manner of good 
sense, only on a larger scale. Origen, (iv, 241,) speaks of the 
bullock on the altar needing cleansing — de6,ueva kourpou, which 
was done not by dipping, but by pouring, as we are expressly 
told. 

To make good his position, Dr. C. refers to the use of this 
word in cases of bathing. This reference assumes, does not 
prove, that " bathing," in the times alluded to, was by im- 
mersion and complete covering. This assumption has no 
better foundation than many others which form corner-stones 
to " the theory." 

There are some bold and unquestionable facts in this direc- 
tion, which, both because of present and general bearing, 
demand distinct presentation. 

Few persons, since the fall of man, have equalled Dr. 
Carson in self-confidence. When such men err they err 
prodigiously and persistently ; for nobody is good enough 
to teach them. " If the angel Gabriel " were to differ from 
them, they would, (as this wise and learned Doctor says he 
would,) " send him to school," where they taught the primer 
and held the birch. Some of these errors of Dr. C. have 
been already pointed out, others remain to be indicated. 

In discussion with President Beecher, this writer had af- 
firmed that " louw, like our word bathe, applied to animal 
bodies only." This position, having been refuted by an 
amount of evidence which could not be gainsayed, was with- 
drawn, and this new position taken, — "But none of the ex- 
amples prove that the thing so washed was not covered with 
the water; this is all we want." 

Everything cannot be disproved at once. And when Bap- 
tist writers flee from their present falling house, to some 
other refuge, and cry, " But you have not shaken down this," 
we can only answer, Get fixed in your new quarters and wait 
your turn. 



120 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

This Greek verb Carson has translated, in the same pas- 
sage, dip, and bathe, and wash, and immerse, and now exults 
in there being, at all events, " a covering with water, which 
is all we want." This position must take its turn, and bide 
the decision of a court of last resort. 

The challenge thrown out is this: "All cases of bathing 
described by this word (AoDw) among Greeks and Scythians, 
Egyptians and Indians, were cases of bathing by immer- 
sion." 

In testing the defensive merits of this new position, we 
present, first, the following extract from Professor Wilson, 
occupying the Chair of Biblical Literature, Belfast, Ireland, 
contained in his work on Baptism (pp. 156-168): "In the 
age of Homer, the vessel for bathing went by the name of 
d<?a/j.tv6oq y and among Greeks, of a somewhat later age, it was 
called nuzXoq. Dr. W. Smith, in his Dictionary of Greek and 
Roman Antiquities, in the article on Baths, presents us with 
the following clear and important statement respecting the 
mode of using the aaa^oq • < It would appear, from the de- 
scription of the bath administered to Ulysses in the palace of 
Oirce, that this vessel did not contain water itself, but was only 
used for the bather to sit in w T hile the warm water was poured 
over him, which was heated in a large caldron or tripod, 
under which the fire was placed, and when sufficiently 
warmed was taken out in other vessels, and poured over 
the head and shoulders of the person who sat in the dffa/uvSo^.' 
Prom this pregnant instance the advocate for dipping may 
learn an instructive lesson. It is no proof of immersion, 
that a party is represented as going into the bath, and coming 
out of the bath. 

" In the case of Ulysses, the descent and the ascent are 
both distinctly recorded; while the author expressly informs 
us, that the ablution was performed by pouring or affusion, and 
not by immersion. This testimony must tell on every dis- 
cerning mind. Dr. Smith farther says : ' On ancient vases, 
on which persons are represented bathing, ice never find any- 
thing corresponding to a modern bath, in which persons can stand 
or sit; but there is always a round or oval basin, resting on 



BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 121 

a stand, by the side of which those who are bathing are rep- 
resented standing undressed, and washing themselves.' 

"This was one of the ordinary public baths of Greece. 
"Where is the ' immersion V These basins were called Xouzripsq, 
as also similar basins at the porticos of Christian churches, 
in the earlier centuries, for washing the hands. 

" It is not, then, a matter of fact, though Dr. Carson has 
stated it in strong and unequivocal terms, * that immersion 
is almost always the way of bathing.' It may be so in our 
own age and country, and if this furnished the standard of 
comparison, no doubt his cause would be triumphant. But, 
in regard to the baths of the ancient Greeks, his statement 
utterly fails, and, failing in that quarter, it is nothing to his 
purpose. 

" The common practice of Greece is incidentally, but very 
strikingly, referred to by Plutarch, in his Ethical Treatise 
against Colotes. After stating that you may see some per- 
sons using the warm-bath, others the cold, he adds: l 0t /iiu 
yap 4>u%pdv vt dk feptxov l-ifidllsw xekeuduet ; ' For some give orders 
to apply it cold, others hot/ The force of hifidXketv strongly 
corroborates the views which we advocate, and indeed con- 
stitutes an independent attestation. The value of this testi- 
mony is greatly enhanced by its exact correspondence with 
the representations on the Greek vases. The ordinary sys- 
tem of bathing in ancient Greece knew no immersion, and em- 
braced no covering of the body with water. 

" Among the paintings in an ancient tomb at Thebes is one 
containing a representation of a lady enjoying the luxury of 
a bath, and attended by four domestic servants. This pre- 
cious relic of former art is thus described by Sir J. Gardner 
Wilkinson, in his elaborate work on The Manners and Cus- 
toms of the Ancient Egyptians, iii, 338 : ' One- attendant re- 
moves the jewelry and clothes she has taken off, or suspends 
them to a stand in the apartment; another pours water from 
a vase over her head, as the third rubs her arms and body with 
her open hands; and a fourth, seated near her, holds a sweet- 
scented flower to her nose, and supports her as she sits (on 
a carpet or mat).' 



122 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

" ' The same subject,' "Wilkinson adds, ' is treated nearly 
in the same manner, on some of the Greek vases, the water 
being poured over the bather, who kneels or is seated on the 
ground.' The mode of bathing in Egypt is thus identified 
with that of ancient Greece. This course of research will 
convince those who prosecute it, that their understandings 
are trifled with, and that speech is abused, when pouring 
water on the bather, the mode practised in the public baths of 
Greece, is referred to merely as a possible way of bathing." 

How evidently and how fatally these facts penetrate the 
centre of the "new position" needs no supplementary words 
to indicate. The evidence, however, might be much ex- 
tended, did it not seem like inviting the remark, — "And 
thrice he slew the slain." Still, one more fact, developing, 
in the most unmistakable and instructive mauner, the mode 
of bathing by a people widely separated, geographically, 
from those hitherto spoken of, may be adduced. Facts, like 
diamond points, will make their mark when all else fails. 
Dr. Carson refers to the bathing of the East Indians as sup- 
porting an "immersion" bath. The following statement of 
fact by the Rev. Mr. Lowenthal, missionary in India, is con- 
clusive, in more than one direction, against unqualified as- 
sertions based on absolute assumptions. This missionary 
(eminent for talent, learning, and devotion, murdered at his 
post) says, — "The Hindoos use a small urn, called lota, with 
which they bathe at the river, pouring 'water over the body." 
How often have we been told, that when a man " goes to a 
river," to bathe or to baptize, idiocy only could deny that 
he must go for an " immersion." And yet here is the prac- 
tice of a people (appealed to for the purpose of sustaining an 
immersion bath) who do not only bathe by "pouring water 
over the body," like Greeks and Egyptians, but who "go to 
the river "for this purpose, taking up the water by means of 
a "small urn." Assertions and assumptions should have a 
very small place in controversial writings. Having no knowl- 
edge of the Sanscrit, I rely upon others, when I say, Allava, 
in that language, means to bathe, to wash. Lota, the vessel 
used in bathing, would seem to stand in the same relation 



BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 123 

to allava as Xouzrjp to h)6u>^ and laver to lave (lavo); and that 
lota, louT7jp 9 and laver were vessels not for bathing in, but for 
holding the water with which, when poured out or drawn 
out, the bathing or washing might be effected. 

The Septuagint uses the term Xouz-qp for the brazen laver 
placed in the tabernacle for ritual purification. There was 
no immersion in this laver. It contained water with which, 
when drawn out,^the hands and feet of the priests were 
washed; thus fulfilling the same office as the Xouzyjp of the 
Grecian baths, from which w r ater was taken to be poured 
over the bathers, as also that of the " lota" of the Hindoos. 
The Scripture direction is, — "Aaron and his sons shall wash 
their hands and their feet, with water, out of it" — Kai vi^erat 

'Aaptbu xai ol vlot auzuu i^ aurou rd<z y^elpaq, xal roug xodaq udazi. 

(Exod. 30 : 19.) 

I add but one more fact on this subject of Indian bath- 
ing. The Rev. Charles Stewart, chaplain U. S. N., (who was 
on board the man-of-war appointed to convey back to their 
country the Japanese ambassadors to the United States gov- 
ernment,) states, that the mode of bathing by these ambas- 
sadors, on board the ship, was by having water taken out of 
a small vessel, and spirted over them by an attendant, while 
they were seated on the floor. 

The fixedness of Eastern customs carries these modes of 
bathing, on the river-bank and in mid-ocean, by "pouring" 
and by " spirting," far back to the ages of Grecian vases, 
and Egyptian paintings, and Mosaic institutions. 

If ever a crushing blow was delivered, such facts go right 
through the assertion, that h>uw^ Xouzpuv, washing, bathing, re- 
quire the "immersion or the complete covering" of the 
object. 

Cleansing. — But we may go farther and say, h>u<n is used 
when water is not employed at all, or not employed to 
effect any physical washing; the effect contemplated being 
one cleansing in its nature. 

It is thus used both in the Septuagint and New Testament. 
When Isaiah says, "Wash (X<>b<j>) you, make you clean, put 
away the evil of your doings, cease to do evil, learn to do 



124 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

well," he issues no command for the use of water, much less 
for its modal use by "immersion, complete covering." He 
contemplates a result (cleansing), and the mode for its ac- 
complishment he expressly states, " cease to do evil, learn 
to do well." If, after being thus cleansed, they should re- 
turn to their evil-doing, the prophet might well ask, in the 
language of the Son of Sirach, " Of what profit was your 
cleansing or ' washing V " 

In the New Testament, the redeemed are said to be 
"washed" (Xobw) by the blood of the crucified Saviour. 
The only definite mode in which Christ's blood is repre- 
sented as applied to his people is that of sprinkling, the same 
as that in which the typical ashes were applied. Now, the 
least particle of these ashes had all the cleansing power be- 
longing to the entire mass. The same is true of the blood 
of the slain Lamb. This great truth (antagonistic to the 
notion of a greater good in quantity) is implied in the mode 
of use employed — by " sprinkling." 

Inasmuch as these sprinklings were competent to produce 
the most absolute cleansing, (ceremonial and typical in the 
one case, spiritual and real in the other,) there is the most 
entire propriety in representing such sprinklings as wash- 
ings=thorough cleansings. And if the sprinkling of the blood 
of Christ is spoken of as a "washing," why not the typical 
sprinkling of the ashes, also, be spoken of as a washing 
(Xourpw) ? Is it not entirely gratuitous to disconnect this term 
from the purifying effect of the ashes, in order to bring in a 
sequent Washing, having nothing to do with the distinctive 
purification of the rite? If Xou~pa> may be applied to the ashes 
purification, we say it must not be applied to anything else. 

It is in proof that Pan-i^io refers to the state of purification 
induced not by water, but by ashes; and this being so, there 
is a logical necessity that lourpw should refer to the same state 
of purification. 

Dr. Carson endeavors to show, that "sprinkling" and 
" washing," as applied to the blood of Christ, denote two 
modes of its use; the one for sprinkling, and the other for 
immersion. But there is no ground whatever, in Scripture, 



BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 125 

for the idea that one soul is " immersed" in the blood of the 
Lamb, much less the universal church of all ages. There 
are few, outside of the theorists, who will not be intellectu- 
ally and morally shocked in attempting to give embodiment 
to such a conception. If it were necessary, under such cir- 
cumstances, to go to the literal application of the word, Dr. 
C. and his friends ought to know, right well, that the wash- 
ing with water of a very limited part of the body was suffi- 
cient to purify the whole; and that touching with blood the 
tip of the ear, the thumb, and the toe, had efficacious cleans- 
ing pow r er extending to the whole body, without " immer- 
sion" in blood. But it is not necessary to go back to the 
primary use of the word. 

In such cases, the idea of cleansing is directly conveyed, 
without regard to the extent or the manner of application. 
The efficacy of the blood of Christ depends on neither quan- 
tity nor mode. And when the terms sprinkle and wash are 
applied to it, distinction of mode is not to be pressed, but that 
in which they agree, namely, — power to cleanse. " Washed 
by his blood," — " blood of sprinkling," call our attention not 
to modes of operation, but to efficacious influence. 

That Xourpuj may be used, in the passage under considera- 
tion, as expressive of the result reached by sprinkling, is made 
certain by its use, with the purification of Ariantheus, by 
sprinkling, on his dying-bed, who, thus, was baptized "with 
the bath, washing, cleansing — Xourpu) — of regeneration." (Basil, 
iv, 1001.) This death-bed sprinkling, Basil being witness, 
effected a " washing." The sprinkling of the blood of Christ 
effects a washing. The sprinkling of heifer ashes effected 
a washing in precisely the same general sense, — a cleansing 
from imparity. Now, shall we adopt this well-established in- 
terpretation, meeting all the features of the case, or shall we 
leave out the sprinkling and the ashes, (the alpha and the 
omega of the rite,) and introduce " immersion" and " bath- 
ing," (not a syllable for which can be found in the law,) on 
the ground that " superstition" may have introduced them 
(Carson)? Ambrose (ii, 1583) speaks of a washing, cleans- 
ing, ablution without water, indeed of water itself, — "ablutce 



126 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

per carnem Christi." If the " flesh " of Christ can wash, ashes, 
representing the blood of Christ, can " wash." And this 
"washing" is a cleansing from which water has disappeared, 
not only as to " covering," but in every other form. 

Syntax. — The syntax of this passage is unusual and claims 
attention. Any essential change of syntax in the structure 
of a sentence is admitted to be evidence of some change of 
thought and of the meaning of words. 

President Halley, of England, adduces the phrase 61 ttjv 
xopcpbpav ftdnrovTeq — " those dyeing the purple" — as conclusive 
evidence of a change of meaning in fid-ret). " The syntax is 
so varied as to make not the thing colored, but the color 
itself, the object of the verb; the secondary sense has re- 
nounced all dependence on the primary, and established 
itself by a new law of syntax, enacted by usage to secure its 
undisturbed possession." 

Professor Wilson, of Belfast, after examining and reject- 
ing the explanations of Gale and Carson on Daniel 4: 30, 
and rifc dpdffou — £/5«^, " wet from the dew," based on the 
primary meaning — dip, says : " The construction with &nb is 
inexplicable on the principle of a literal, primary interpre- 
tation. But if the verb, divorced from mode, takes the 
meaning to wet, then a literal exegesis is both practicable 
and natural." 

Professor Stuart, of our country, quotes a similarly con- 
structed passage from Leviticus 4 : 17, xal ftdfei 6 Upeuq rdv 
ddxruXov d-d rod aufiaroq — "And the priest shall moisten or smear 
over his finger from the blood," as indicating, by its change 
of syntax, a change in the meaning of the verb. 

Precisely the same syntactical form, as in the last two pas- 
sages, occurs in the passage under consideration — PaitTtZdfievoq 
d.7i6 vexpou, " being baptized from the dead;" there can be no 
translation of this passage, as it stands, on the basis of a dip- 
ping, an immersing, or a covering over ; but if we adopt that 
meaning which has been shown to be the legitimate produc- 
tion of the laws of language — to make -pure — the translation 
is direct and facile, " being purified from a dead body." And 
just as " dye" and " wet" are the natural advance meanings 



BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 127 

of dip, so "to purify" is the natural advance meaning of 
fiaacTiZa in religious rites. 

Thus the result of language-development is sustained by 
modified form in the relation of words to meet modified 
meaning of words. 

When we come to usage like this, we feel the necessity, 
in writings intended for general circulation, to introduce a 
second word in translation. 

The Greeks employed fidTtru) to denote a dipping, and also 
the far-off idea of a bloodied face. They reached this second 
meaning legitimately, but our language has not travelled in 
that direction, certainly not to that point, and probably never 
will; if, therefore, we wish to translate from the Greek any- 
thing respecting " a bloodied face," (or " bloodied finger,") 
we will use some other word than dip. 

The Greeks also used ^aitxi^m to express to merse, and also 
the far-removed idea to make drunk, reached, however, by 
methods most legitimate ; but we have no such usage, and 
therefore, to be intelligible, must use a second word. The 
Jews used /3a7rr£«>, like the Greeks, in the sense to merse, and 
(by a development which the Greeks had not followed out, 
but on the same principles wdiich they had followed to other 
issues) they used it to express the idea to make ceremonially 
pure. We have nothing to do with Jewish or any other 
ceremonial purity, and have no such meaning attached or 
readily attachable to the word, and, consequently, are under 
obligation to use another word, or introduce some caveat 
against misconception. The Jew would have been no less 
embarrassed, in speaking of the Duke of Wellington and of 
Nelson's flag-ship, by the same designation — dvijp noXenurrijs. 
Having such phrase rigidly fixed to express the warlike char- 
acter of a David or a Goliah, and having no counterpart to 
the "Victory" and her thundering cannon, (any more than 
we have to Jewish defilements and ritual purifications,) they 
would not be likely to engraft upon their language by a lite- 
ral translation, "man-of-war" for a fighting-ship, but would 
give it expression by some word or phrase in harmony with 
their own use of language. 



128 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

In Classic Baptism, having represented the one Greek 
word /3a7rnf> by the one word merse, (indicating, in other 
ways than by the translation, the differences of meaning, 
and pointing out their legitimate outgrowth from the radi- 
cal idea,) I will no longer do violence to our very different 
language position by retaining always the same verbal form. 

Feeling justified in believing that proof has been adduced 
that the Classic Baptism, par eminence, was a state of intoxi- 
cation, and that, by like eminence, a state of ceremonial purifi- 
cation was Judaic Baptism, I shall feel at perfect liberty to 
translate and to speak accordingly. 

Much attention has been given to this passage because of 
its importance, both direct and indirect. When it shall have 
been closely compared with the ritual law ; with Josephus, 
Philo, and Cyril ; with the usage of Xobu> in the Septuagint and 
New Testament; with the classical development of PanT%a>; 
and when the absolute use of fiaxTLZofievoq, and its peculiar 
syntax shall have been duly considered; I think that there 
will be few who will not admit.it as proving, that the sprink- 
ling of heifer ashes reveals the agency and the mode by which 
this baptism was effected, and that the resultant condition — 
ceremonial purification, was Judaic Baptism. 

Abundant evidence confirmatory of this conclusion will 
be, hereafter, met with. 



OLD TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 



(129) 



PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION 

OP 
PASSAGES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 

EXPOUNDED AS 

JUDAIC BAPTISMS AND FIGURES OF CHRISTIAN 

BAPTISM, 

SHOWING THEIR CONCEPTION OF 

b a n t i z n. 



The passages taken from the Old Testament Scriptures, 
now about to be examined, do not, of course, exhibit the 
Greek word in the original (Hebrew) text; nor is this word 
often found in the Greek (Septuagint) translation. This, 
however, far from being a disadvantage, is a manifest ad- 
vantage. The use of a word belonging to one language as 
the equivalent of a word in another language, or as exposi- 
tory of an idea resultant from many words, or as declarative 
of an effect accomplished by an act or combination of acts 
and influences, all sharply defined and well understood, 
leaves but little material to be desired for a proper under- 
standing of such word. 

The propriety and the value of such usage find their vindi- 
cation in the employment by the inspired Apostle of ^anrlZm 
to describe the relation established between the Israelites and 
Moses by the miraculous passage of the Red Sea. In the 
Hebrew text there is no verbal form which is represented by 
the Greek — efc rov Mwa? t v Iftaxriaavro ; it is no translation, but 
an independent, authoritative statement or interpretation, 
which may or may not be found in the narrative by Moses. 

(131) 



132 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

But whether in the verbal record as originally made through 
the Holy Ghost, or not, it was in the transaction. The his- 
torical narrative of occurring events may be varied, but the 
events themselves cannot be changed. Paul's statement, if 
not found among the words of Moses, will be found among 
the facts of the transaction or their outwrought results. 
The record by Moses and by Paul has equally the stamp of 
divine authority. Justly expounded, the different forms of 
phraseology will give welcome and valuable aid in reaching 
the meaning of words, and a fuller understanding of the 
transaction. When Patristic writers, not professing to trans- 
late the Hebrew text, but to expound the nature of minutely 
described rites, or the results of historically detailed transac- 
tions, pronounce them baptisms, their statement has no divine 
authority, as has Paul's, but it has the highest human au- 
thority. 

These writers had, unquestionably, a perfect kuowledge 
of the Greek word, as classically used, as also of its capabili- 
ties for development, and the laws of the Greek language, 
under which such development should be made. Their au- 
thority for the use of a Greek word is as unimpeachable as 
is that of Homer or of Xenophon, so far as meaning and 
fitness of application are concerned. 

The exposition of the Old Testament, in reference to bap- 
tism by Patrists, must be made from their own standpoint, 
as to the nature of Christian and Judaic Baptism; and, in 
interpreting their interpretation, we must occupy the same 
position. They may err in their understanding of the nature 
of these baptisms, but they cannot err in their understanding 
of the nature, abstractly, of a baptism. 

When they say that the nature or value, intrinsic or rela- 
tive, of Judaic Baptism, of John's Baptism, of Christian 
Baptism, was this or that, they may be right or wrong, and 
are subject to peremptory challenge; but when they say that 
a certain rite, by means of a drop of water falling from the 
finger's tip, effects a baptism ; or, that the act by which the 
hand of the priest is laid upon the head, effects a baptism; 
or, that influence, proceeding from any source, without con- 



FIGURES OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 133 

tact, effects a baptism, they are beyond impeachment from 
us. They are arbiters, without appeal, as to the capability 
of the word for such usage. Such use, is, in itself, a final 
decree in the case. 

Again, when these writers declare of certain transactions, 
that they are "figures" of baptism, we are at liberty to ques- 
tion whether there was any such " figure " designed by the 
inspired writer; or we may question the soundness of judg- 
ment which finds such figure; or we may challenge on the 
ground of the abstract merits of the case; but it is beyond 
our province to raise a question as to the existence of resem- 
blance to baptism, as it has become concrete in the minds of 
these writers. Whenever they put their finger upon a fact, 
or indicate a conception, and say "that resembles baptism," 
we have nothing to do but to accept such fact or conception 
as an image in the glass shadowing forth the reality in their 
minds. The great value of these "figures " and "images " 
is that they are fixed quantities, not like the ever-varying 
''figures" — trope, and metaphor, and hyperbole, and cata- 
chresis, and metonomy, and synecdoche — which wait, as an 
ever-ready band of servitors, upon the theory; nor like the 
pictures of "pools, and floods, and torrents," into which debt- 
ors and tax-payers are dipped, or by which ships and cities 
are whelmed. Such things may give exercise to the imagi- 
nation, but will furnish very little satisfaction to thoughtful 
men, as introduced into this subject by Baptist writers. 

If, in the examination of the many and varied appeals to 
"figure," by Patristic writers, we do not find one instance 
of " a dipping," one instance of "a torrent," one instance of 
" a covering over," as exhibiting a resemblance to baptism, 
but, on the contrary, find constant reference to resemblances 
in things which are as far removed from dippings, ivhelmings, 
coverings, as is the east removed from the west, what must 
we conclude to be the Patristic estimation of the theory 
which makes baptism "a dipping, and nothing but a dip- 
ping, through all Greek literature?" 

If there were no other ruinous evidence against the dip- 
ping theory than that furnished by these Old Testament 



134 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

baptisms and figures of baptism, brought to view by Patris- 
tic writers, this alone would be sufficient to insure its death 
and burial, without hope of resurrection. 
Let us now look at some of them. 



BAPTISM OP THE WATEKS BY QUALITY IMPARTED. 

Genesis 1 : 2. 
" And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." 

Baptism, of the Waters by the Spirit of God. 

" Sed ea satis prseeerpsisse, in quibus et ratio Baptismi recog- 
noscitur prima ilia, qua jam tunc etiam ipso habitu praenotabatur 
ad Baptismi figuram, Dei Spiritum, qui ab initio supervectabatur 
super aquas, intinctos reformaturum. Sanctum autem utique 
super sanctum ferebatur; aut ab eo quod superferebatur, id quod 
ferebat, sancitatem mutuabatur. Quoniam subjecta quaeque ma- 
teria, ejus qua? desuper imminet, qualitatem rapiat necesse est, 
maxime corporalis spiritalem, et penetrare et insidere facilem 
per substantia? suae subtilitatem. Ita de sancto sanctificata? na- 
tura aquarum, et ipsa? sanctificare concepit." 

"But it is sufficient to have premised these things, whereby 
also may be recognized that prime nature of baptism, by which, 
even then, by its very dress, was foreshown by a figure of bap- 
tism, that the Spirit of God, which from the beginning was 
upborne above the waters, would transform the imbued. But, 
indeed, the holy was borne above the holy, or that which bore 
received sanctity from that upborne. Since whatever substance 
is beneath, receives, of necessity, character from that which rests 
above, especially is a physical substance pervaded by a spiritual, 
through the subtlety of its nature. So the nature of the waters 
was sanctified by the Holy, and itself received the power to 
sanctify." — Tertullian, i, 1203. 

Didymus Alexandrinus (692), speaks of this passage in terms 
so closely resembling those of Tertullian, that they almost ap- 
pear to be a translation. 

C /Z adcatperoq xai appyroq Tptaq, xpoopwaa i£ alaJvoq too avOpio-tvou fttou 
to. dXiaOypa, up.az<p 7zapo.yays.lv l*. p.r^ ovrwv Ti t v uypdv obaiav ) rfirpi-iasv 



BAPTISM OF THE WATERS BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. 135 

dvOpajKots Trjv lv rolq udaaiv I'aaw. TmydpTot ttj iaoroo l-upopa to aycou 
IJvsdfxa ix tots dyidaav a(JTa } xai £woy6vov dizoTsXiaav ipaivsTai. IJauT), 
yap 7zp6dij?.ov u-dp%st, wt xai t6 uizspxstjj.svov t<J> U7cspxsi[j.£va> T^q olxsias 
psTadidiDGW) W outuxt eixco, TZOioTTjToq, xaX Tiaaa 6izoxetfiivy oJ.7], T? t <; too 
bttxetfiivou <ptXsl -Kwq dpnd^siv IdioTTjToq. "OOsv ddtaxpiTtoq izavTi vdaTt, 

. . . fid-Ttfffxa yiveTai. (" Baptism is effected by every water indis- 
criminately.") 

EXPOSITION. 

This is not a case of Judaic Baptism; but a "figure" of 
Patristic Baptism as conceived of, taught, and practised, by 
Tertullian and others. 

It is not a little remarkable that in the first chapter of the 
Old Testament, and, almost, in its first verse, there should 
be found a "figure of baptism," susceptible, under any ap- 
pliances of imagination, of developing nearly all the salient 
points of baptism as it lay in the Patrist mind. Whether 
their views were right or wrong is not, now, any inquiry of 
ours. We have to do with philology, not with theology. A 
heathen Greek or a Patristic errorist can, here, give sound 
instruction as to the usage of words. 

It would not be proper to consider in detail, the peculiar- 
ities of Patristic baptism; but they form so completely the 
web and woof of their interpretations of these Old Testa- 
ment baptisms, that it becomes essential to give them some 
attention. The present is a favorable opportunity to do so, 
as they cluster around the exposition of this passage in an 
unusual degree. 

" Figure of Baptism." — In this figure of baptism presented 
before us by Tertullian there are but two elements, — the 
Holy Spirit and water. Our business is to discover the justi- 
fying ground for affirming that these elements, in them- 
selves, or in their relations to each other, or by their in- 
fluence over each other, exhibit "the figure," form, or char- 
acter of a baptism. A " figure " must contain a resemblance 
to the reality figured. Baptists have maintained, with the 
most cast iron rigidity, that baptism consists of "mode, and 
nothing but mode," and that a discussion of the mode of 
baptism is as great a blunder as to discuss the mode of dip- 



136 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

ping, whose form is a fixed unity. Try this theory by " the 
figure of baptism" before us. Is there anything in it which 
resembles a dipping? I need hardly say that there is no 
such thing. 

We have, then, a figure of baptism, with the baptism part 
left out. 

But the more sober-minded Baptists are beginning to 
shrink from this position, to which they so long demanded 
the obedience of the Christian world under penalty of dis- 
loyalty to God, and are substituting liberty in the act, yet 
requiring completeness in the covering. Is there an} 7 com- 
pleteness of covering in this "figure?" There is none 
whatever. Again, then, we have a house built with the 
foundation forgotten. The Baptist theory, whether repre- 
sented in its rigidity by Carson, or in its laxit}' by Conant, 
utterly fails to expound this "figure of baptism." 

Submit, now, to the same test the conclusion to which we 
have been brought by an examination of the usage of classic 
writers, — a conclusion which denies that the essence ofpaxTtZa* 
is to be found in action, definite or indefinite ; and affirms that 
it is to be found in change of condition: 1. To place an object 
in a condition of physical intuspositiou subject to all the 
controlling influences of such condition. 2. To change con- 
trollingly and after its own nature the condition of an object, 
without intusposition, by any influence competent to effect 
such change. 

Does this definition find its shadow in " the figure of bap- 
tism" before us? So complete is the resemblance that we 
are tempted to believe that the one was directly sketched 
from the other. This is not so; they were not taken, the 
one from the other, but both were taken from one original, — 
the Classic writers. Hence the perfect resemblance between 
"the figure" of Tertullian and "the conclusion" of Classic 
Baptism. We originate no novelty in the ^ecclesiastical 
usage of this word. We rest squarely on the Classic founda- 
tion. The only novelty is in the application of the word to 
a class of things with which heathen writers had no ac- 
quaintance; thus increasing its domain without changing 



BAPTISM OF THE WATERS BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. 137 

its principle. The "figure" resemblance, in this case, con- 
sists in the change of condition in the waters, by the new 
"quality" imparted to them through the influence of the 
Holy Spirit. This was itself a baptism, yet, only, a figure 
of (he baptism. The lamb slain on Abel's altar was a sac- 
rifice, yet, only a figure of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God 
slain on Calvary. 

The Agent. — The agent in this baptism was the Holy 
Spirit. The quo modo of any baptism is never governed by 
the word. The mode, by which the baptism was effected in 
this case, Tertullian is very particular in stating was neither 
by " dipping," nor by any act " effecting a complete cover- 
ing;" but by "moving above" and "resting upon." He 
lays it down as a received axiom that "the decumbent 
must receive the quality of the superincumbent," Thus 
the waters were penetrated and pervaded by a holy quality 
received from the incumbent Holy Spirit; and, still more, 
were endued with the power to communicate such quality; 
in other words became capable of baptizing — changing con- 
dition by imparting the quality of sanctity. Without bear- 
ing in mind this new power claimed to be conferred on the 
waters, Patristic baptism can never be»unclerstood. 

The Object. — The object in this baptism was "the waters." 
Dr. Carson insists that a dipping must be impossible before 
a secondary meaning can have any hearing. Will those who 
have fallen heirs to his sentiments, tell us where the possi- 
bility of a dipping is to be found here? Gale could hyper- 
bolize the waters of a lake into the scanty pool of a frog's 
blood ; but where is the hyperbole to come from, or where 
is the tiny pool to be found, when the object for clipping is 
" the waters " swathing the globe, before "the dry land was 
made to appear?" 

But while "the waters" are the object of baptism in this 
case, they stand in another relation, entirely, in the baptism. 
They there become the agent in baptism, and execute the 
function for which they are now qualified — " sanctified and 
with power to sancd/g^' That water is an agency in baptism, 
exercising a positive power, controlling the moral condition 



138 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

of those subject to its influence, is another Patristic idea, 
without whose aid their baptism cannot be rightly inter- 
preted. 

Intinctos. — The friends of the theory may here smile and 
say, " At last we have a dip." We could almost wish that 
it were so, they have been so often and so sorely disap- 
pointed; but it is not a very hopeful case. Let us suppose, 
however, that Tertullian does, here, speak of "the dipped," 
what is the precise value of the statement? Is it replied: 
"It teaches that when men were baptized they were ' dipped,' 
and therefore to baptize is to dip?" Festina lente ; do not 
draw conclusions too fast. Cloth is dyed by dipping, there- 
fore to dye means to dip ! Is that the logic ? Has it not been 
settled, even to Dr. Carson's satisfaction, that dyeing is not 
dipping, and dipping is not dyeing? And has it not been set- 
tled, on yet stronger evidence, that "baptizing is not clipping, 
and dipping is not baptizing?" Whatever place, then, dip- 
ping might have in a baptism, it cannot represent Pa-Ti%a>. 
This inquiry, then, is not affected if " intinctos" should be 
written down " dipped." But before that is done, let us re- 
flect on some things which otherwise might require it to be 
undone. Does not tingo mean to dye? " Certainly." And 
does not tingo, also, cease to express color and declare a 
quality (as of honesty, justice,) without color? "But, what 
has that to do with ' intinctos' applied to water ? " Just this : 
the water of Patristic baptism is "sanctified" water, and is 
capable of "sanctifying" that which is dipped into it, or 
that which is sprinkled by it; therefore the sanctified or bap- 
tized condition induced by this water-agency is no more the 
dipping which puts the object into it, than is the dyed con- 
dition of the cloth the dipping which put it into the coloring- 
tub. 

That Tertullian had no idea of limiting this word to the 
action of dipping, is manifest by its adjunct, "intinctos re- 
formatunim" Were " the dipped " to be " made over again," 
by the act of dipping into simple water? Did Tertullian be- 
lieve any such thing? Did any Patristic writer believe any 
such thing? Did not he, and others, believe that men dip- 



BAPTISM OF THE WATERS BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. 139 

peel into water, "penetrated and pervaded with a quality 
communicated by the Holy Spirit," were, by this "quality," 
"reformed," regenerated, intincted with a divine influence? 
And did they not believe that this "quality" was able (Dr. 
Carson to the contrary notwithstanding) to baptize, to intinct, 
to regenerate, to purify from sin, to save, to change the con- 
dition of the soul, by sprinkling as well as by dipping? No 
man, who will take the trouble to read the testimony on 
these points, will think of denying this. An intelligent ap- 
prehension of all the features of the case, will place a very 
imperative veto on the confounding of the "intinctos" with 
the merely dipped, or a clipping with a baptism. 

I should have preferred saying nothing, at present, on these 
features of Patristic baptism, had not the case, as presented, 
seemed to make it imperative. I only add a testimony or 
two from the Classics, to show that water may be " intincted," 
have quality without color imparted to it: Et ineerto font- 
em medicamine linxit. — Metamorph., iv, 388. " Tincted or 
infected the fountain with a doubtful drug." 

An quia cunctarum eontraria semina rerunr 
Sunt duo, diseordes ignis et unda Dei, 
Junxerunt clementa patres : aptumque putarun-t 
Ignibus et spursa tingere corpus aqua? 

Fastorum, iv, 787-790. 

Here is the body tincted without being colored, by " sprinkled! 
water" used in religious rites. It is perilous for controver- 
sialists to stake their all on naked words. Verbal alliances 
constitute a new power which will make itself to be felt. 
Chemical elements, in combination, lose their isolated char- 
acter. Individuals, in social organization, give up old rights 
and secure new ones. Words, m organic phrases, modify 
their individuality, by giving to and receiving from associ- 
ate words. T'uujo cannot' put on an abstract unehangeability, 
but must submit to universal law, and take character from 
•the company it keeps. 

The views of Tertullian on this passage are not peculiar, 
but fairly represent the views of his times. This will suffi- 
ciently appear from one or two quotations. 



140 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

Jerome ii, 161. " Quomodo antiquis sordibus anima purga- 
tur, qua? sanctum nou babet Spiritum? Neque enim aqua 
lavat animam, sed prius lavatur a Spiritu, at alios lavare 
spiritualiter possit. Spiritus, inquit Moyses, Domini ferebatur 
super aquas. (Gen. 1, 2.) Ex quo apparet baptisma non esse 
sine Spiritu sancto. Betbesda lacus Judsese, nisi per adven- 
tum Angeli, debilitata corporaliter membra sanare non po- 
terat : et tu mihi aqua simplici, quasi de balneo animam lotam 
producis?" 

This passage brings into bold relief the following points : 

1. Simple water, however used, by dipping, covering, 
sprinkling, pouring, or with whatsoever formularies, how- 
ever orthodox, associated, cannot effect Jerome's baptism. 

2. In Jerome's baptism the soul is " washed, "=cleansed, 
(antiquis sordibus purgatur,) changed in condition. 

3. To effect this change of condition in the soul, the water 
itself must first be changed by a new quality imparted to it 
by the Holy Spirit. 

4. In proof that such change in the water is effected, he 
quotes Genesis 1:2: " The Spirit of the Lord was borne above 
the waters." 

As the Classics teach us that there are two baptisms of 
wine, most absolutely distinct in nature, the one resulting 
from its mersing quality, the other from its intoxicating 
qualit} 7 ; so Jerome teaches that there are two baptisms of 
water, as absolutely distinct in nature; the one due to its 
mersing quality, the other due to its soul-sanctifying quality, 
imparted by the Holy Spirit. The first of these wine bap- 
tisms is exemplified by Richard drowning Clarence; the 
second by Thebe intoxicating Alexander. The first of these 
wate*r baptisms is that of Arian, who uses simple water be- 
cause "he has not the Holy Spirit." The second is that of 
Jerome, who employs water having a sanctifying quality 
able "to change the condition of the soul." 

The limitation of baptism to a dipping or a covering, is a 
thought nowhere to be found among Classics or Patrists. 
To bring such a conception to expound the subject of bap- 
tisms, is like using a dark lantern to illumine the realms of 



BAPTISM OF THE WATERS BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. 141 

Erebus. The mode of baptism employed by Arian and by 
Jerome, may have been the same. Both may have dipped 
their diseiples; but those of Arian came out of their dipping 
unbaptized, and those of Jerome came out of their dipping" 
baptized, for precisely the same reason that cloth dipped 
into mere water comes forth uncolored, and dipped into dye- 
water, conies forth colored. Jerome knew nothing of the 
theory that "baptizing is dipping, and dipping is baptizing." 

A passage of like import may be found in Ambrose, ii, 1583: 
" Baptizatus est ergo Dominus non mundari volens, sed mun- 
dare aquas; ut ablutaa per carnem Christi, quae peccatum non 
cognovit, baptismatis jus haberent." 

Here we have inculcated : 1. That a divine influence was 
exerted over the waters. 2. That, by virtue of this divine 
influence, the waters were invested with the power of baptism. 

If, now, it be a token of lunacy to deny that water has, of 
essence, and not by accident, "the power" to receive any 
object dipped into it; and if Ambrose denies that water has, 
by its essential nature, the "jus baptismatis" and only pos- 
sesses it through a special quality, extraordinarily conferred, 
then, either Ambrose was a lunatic, or "jus baptismatis" 
means something else than a quality making competent for 
a dipping. All, not inextricably involved in the theory, will 
be likely to conclude that Ambrose was of a sound mind, 
and that "the power of baptism," divinely conferred, w T as 
the power to change the condition of the soul by spiritual 
cleansing. 

Tertullian, Jerome, Ambrose, and a great cloud of associ- 
ates, knew nothing of a baptism characterized by definite 
action. Their baptism was, and was only, one of changed 
condition, however effected. Patristic baptism was a changed 
condition of the soul, effected by the influence of water, 
through a quality specially and divinely imparted to it. 

Allow me to conclude by giving a definition of baptism 
from Basil Magnus, iii, 736 : 

i Tiq 6 h'tyos rj jy duva.{uq too ft 'am ia fiar o<;' } To aXXoimOy^ai rov t 3a~zi%6- 
ftevov xard re vaiuv, xai X6yov i xai ~(>azv;, /.at yvstaQai exetvo xard rqv doOelaau 
duvaptv, o-tfj iazt to k£ oo iys'srjOy. 



142 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

" What is the purport and the power of baptism ? That 
the baptized be changed as to thought, word, and act, and 
become, through the power conferred, the same as that of 
which he is born." 

I present this definition, 1. Because the Latin translation 
— " Quae sit ratio aut vis baptismatis?" — presents " ratio " in 
the same relation to baptism (ratio baptismi) as does the ex- 
tract from Tertullian. 

2. Because of the identity of conception between this defi- 
nition of baptism, as given by Basil, and that given in "the 
conclusion" of Classic Baptism. 

" The conclusion " is more comprehensive than the defini- 
tion of Basil, because made to comprise all baptisms, while 
his contemplates the class of baptisms effected by influential 
agencies. 

Compare " the conclusion," as explained, p. 57: "What- 
ever influence is capable of thoroughly changing the charac- 
ter, state, or condition of any object, by 'pervading it and 
making it subject to its own characteristic, is capable of baptiz- 
ing that object," with the definition of Basil, " That the 
baptized be changed, as to thought, word, and act, and be- 
come, through the power conferred, the same as that of 
which he is born." 

"The conclusion" was deduced from a collation of all the 
passages relating to baptism in Greek classic writings, and 
the definition of Basil was derived from immediate personal 
knowledge of the usage of his native tongue. 

" The conclusion " and the definition, weighed over against 
each other, do not differ so much as by the weight of the dust 
in the balances. 

Tertullian, also, and Basil, are in perfect accord on this 
subject. 

It is a hopeless task, then, to look any longer for a " dip- 
ping" in this "figure of baptism." 

Reference may be had to the following, among many other 
passages : 

Peccataenim purgare ethominem sanctificare aqua sola non 
potest nisi habeat et Spiritual sanctum. — Tertullian, iii, 1132. 



BAPTISM OF A FOUNTAIN BY A TREE. 143 

Aqua opus est, operatio Spiritus sancti est. Non sanat 
aqua, nisi Spiritus desccnderit. — Ambrose, iii, 422. 

Et bene in exordio creaturae baptismi figura signatur, per 
quod baberit creatura mundari. (743.) 

Plurima baptismatum genera prsemissa sunt, quia secutum 
erat verura illud unum. (1248.) 

As illustrative of "intinctos" tbe following bas special 
value : 

II ph 7} rolvuv i-eAOelv ttjv aXrfiT) zoo Ilveuiiazoq fia<prp, l^dkeupov zaq 
xaxws ivze&efoaq cot <ruvT]6zca<;. — Chrysostom, ii, 235. 

Any overbold man, offering tbis passage to Dr. Carson 
to prove tbat fia<pr t v meant something else than a dipping, 
must expect a plentiful sprinkling of bis characteristic "At- 
tic salt." Yet, after all, tbe xlvii Prop, of Euclid does not 
challenge more absolute assent to its Q. E. D., than does 
this passage and its context demand assent to the clearness 
of its representation, as exhibiting the Holy Spirit removing 
sin-spots from the soul, as a painter imperfect colors from a 
picture, and using the waters of baptism, not for a dipping, 
but, as a painter, his last choicest colors, for tincting the soul 
and bringing it into a changed, spotless condition. 

Carson's demand for the "impossibility" of dipping, is 
here met four-square. 



BAPTISM OF A FOUNTAIN BY A TKEE. 

Exodus 15:23-25. 

"And when they came to Marah they could not drink of the 
waters of Marah, for they were bitter; therefore the name of it 
was called Marah. 

" And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall 
we drink? 

" And he cried unto the Lord; and the Lord showed him a tree, 
which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made 
sweet." 

Multa sunt genera baptismatum, sed unum baptisma, clamat 
Apostolus. (Eph. 4 : 5.) Quare ? Sunt baptismata gentium, sed 



144 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

non sunt baptismata. Lavacra sunt, baptismata esse non pos- 
sunt. Caro lavatur, non culpa diluitur; immo in illo lavacro 
contrahitur. Erant autem baptismata Judseorum (Mark 7 : 8), 
alia superflua, alia in figura. Et figura ipsa nobis proficit, quia 
veritatis est nuncia. — Ambrose, iii, 424. 

Aliud (genus baptismatis) etsi non ordinem tenemus . . . 
Moyses misit lignum in fontem, et coepit aqua quae antea erat 
amara, dulceseere. Quid significat, nisi quia omnis creatura 
corruptelse obnoxia, aqua amara est omnibus . . . amara est 
quae non potest auferre peccatum. Amara ergo aqua: sed ubi 
crucem Christi, ubi acceperis coeleste sacramentum, incipit esse 
dulcis et suavis: et merito dulcis, in qua culpa revocatur. Ergo 
si in figura tantum valuerunt baptismata, quanto amplius valet 
baptisma in veritate ? iii, 427. 

Sicut ergo in ilium fontem Moyses misit lignum, hoc est pro- 
pheta; ita et in hunc fontem sacerdos prsedicationern Domiuicse 
crucis mittit, et aqua fit dulcis ad gratiam. (iii, 393.) . . . et 
amaritudinem suam aquarum natura deposuit, quam infusa 
subito gratia temperavit. (406.) . . . non utique dubitandum est 
quod superveniens (Spiritus sanctus) in fontem, vel super eos 
qui baptismum consequuntur, veritatem regenerationis opere- 
tur. (410.) 

Myrrhse fontis amaritudine per ligni gratiam temperata, cog- 
noscimus esse mundatos. — Ambrose, ii, 1434. 

Obx and %uXoi> lyXuzdvdr} udcop, icq to yva>ff67 i vat rijv Icybv aurod. 

Wisdom of Sirach, 38 : 5. 



OLD QUALITY CHANGED AND NEW QUALITY IMPARTED. 

PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION. 

" There are many kinds of baptisms, but the Apostle an- 
nounces one baptism. Why? There are baptisms of the Gen- 
tiles, but they are not baptisms. They are, washings, they can- 
not be baptisms. The body is washed; sin is not washed away: 
nay by that washing it is contracted. But there were baptisms 
of the Jews (Mark 7 : 8), some unnecessary, others in figure. 
And the very figure is profitable to us, because it is the messen- 
ger of truth." — Ambrose, iii, 424. 

" There is another kind of baptism, although we do not pre- 



BAPTISM OF A FOUNTAIN BY A THEE. 145 

serve the order. . . . Moses cast the wood into the fountain, and 
the water which before was bitter grew sweet. What does this 
signify, except that every creature liable to corruption, the 
water is bitter to all ... . that is bitter which cannot take 
away sin. Water, therefore, is bitter; but when thou shalt have 
received the cross of Christ and the heavenly sacrament, it be- 
comes sweet and pleasant: and that is with reason sweet, by 
which sin is revoked. Therefore, if in figure merely baptisms 
were so powerful, how much more powerful is baptism in reality? 
(427.) 

" As, therefore, Moses cast the wood into the fountain, this is 
prophetic; so, also, does the priest cast the proclamation of the 
Lord's cross into this fountain and the water is made sweet for 
grace. (393.) . . . the waters lay aside their natural bitterness, 
which infused grace has quickly attempered. (406.) . . . and 
certainly it is not to be doubted that the Holy Spirit coming 
over upon the fountain, or over those who obtain baptism, 
effects true regeneration. (410.) 

"The bitterness of the fountain of Myrrhas being attempered 
by the grace of the wood, we know that they were made pure 
(baptized). ,; — Ambrose, ii, 1434. 

tl Was not the water made sweet by wood, in order that its 
power might be made known?" — Wisdom of Sirach,. 38 : 5. 

Points claiming attention. 

The substantial resemblance between the baptism of this 
fountain by "wood," (symbol of the Cross,) changing its 
condition of bitterness, and the baptism of the waters by the 
incumbent Spirit changing their condition- by imparting a 
new quality, is too evident, and sufficiently explained by 
remarks on the latter baptism, to require more than the 
calling attention, briefly, to some additional points. 

1. " There are many hinds of baptisms" This is a flat con- 
tradiction of the theory that tells us, whether it be of a world 
or a flea's foot, whether of saint or of sinner, whether in 
heathendom or in Christendom, whether in, fact or in figure, 
a baptism is an unalterable unity; "a definite act;" "a mode, 
and nothing but mode;" a change in it is a destruction of 
it. Over against this theory, which has nothing to sustain 

10 



146 JUDAIC BAPTISM 

it but self-assertion, Ambrose writes : " There are many kinds 
of baptisms/*' 

Inasmuch as we have seen this statement emphatically sus- 
tained by the facts of " Classic Baptism,'" we take sides with 
the Milanese Bishop. 

2. " There are bajotisms of the Gentiles, but they are not bap- 
tisms." If those who have a right to write authoritatively 
on the subject, had never written anything else but this sen- 
tence and context, it would be enough to establish a twofold 
meaning of the word "baptism," and to overturn the theory 
which contradicts it. 

Ambrose does not commit the absurdity of saying that 
the Gentiles have no baptisms; no secular baptisms. He is 
discoursing on religion, and he asserts that, in their religious 
rites, they have nothing which can be called " baptism," in 
the sense in which he uses that term, because they have no 
use of water under any form of " washing," which is capable 
of changing the condition of the soul, by taking away sin. 
"Washings," by sprinkling, pouring, dipping, covering, they 
have for the body; "baptisms," which cleanse the soul, they 
have not. In the vocabulary of Ambrose, "baptism " did not 
mean a definite act; it did mean a change of condition in the 
soul, through the influence of a quality divinely communi- 
cated to the water. 

3. "There is another kind of baptism." Having referred to 
a baptism in connection with the axe lost in the Jordan, 
(which we will meet with hereafter,) Ambrose says: " There 
is another kind of baptism;" and then states that of the foun- 
tain of Myrrha, which is before us. If these baptisms strike 
any one as novelties, let them remember the conclusions 
reached in " Classic Baptism," and reflect whether the two 
be not in the most perfect harmony. The theory insists that 
there can be but "one baptism." Unfortunately our theor- 
ists have confounded a dipping and a baptism, and have thereby 
got into a world of trouble. They can only escape by get- 
ting rid of this sad error — fons et origo malorum. 

As Tertullian declares that "the waters" were baptized, 
changed in condition, by a new quality imparted to them by 



BAPTISM OF A FOUNTAIN BY A TREE. 147 

tlie influence of the Holy Spirit, so Ambrose declares that 
this fountain of water was baptized, changed in condition, 
by the removal of a quality, through the influence of a tree, 
symbolizing the cross of Christ. 

4. " That is bitter ichich cannot take away sin." This water, 
made sweet, and impregnated with the influence of this 
symbol tree, was able " to take away sin ;"=to baptize ; " cog- 
noscimus esse mundatos." If any one asks how ? I answer, 
by drinking. For the principle involved — baptism by drink- 
ing — we have abundance of authority, not only in wine- 
drinking baptism, and in opiate-drinking baptism, but in 
baptism by drinking at a fountain. If the fountain of Si- 
lenus was capable of baptizing after that "kind of baptism" 
appropriate to its peculiar quality, why should not the foun- 
tain of Myrrha baptize those who drank of it, after that 
"kind of baptism" appropriate to the new quality with 
which it had become impregnated ? 

Ambrose is as classically orthodox in his mode of baptiz- 
ing, as he is in the nature of his baptism. His theology is 
another matter. 

5. "If baptisms in figure are so powerful" It should be 
written deeply on every mind, that this Myrrha, and other 
kindred transactions, are declared, in absolute terms, to be 
"baptisms." They are not something else, in fact, and only 
entitled quasi baptisms by a theological fiction. They are 
"baptisms" in their own right, and "powerful" baptisms, 
too. As such, they " figure " another baptism higher and 
mightier than themselves. This is the doctrine of Ambrose. 
Dipping finds no more countenance in this Myrrha baptism 
of the Patrists, effected by wood thrown into it, than by the 
wine-baptism of the Classics, effected by water poured into it. 

The quotation from Ecclesiasticus shows the controlling 
power of the wood over the water, rendering it competent 
to thoroughly change its condition. Classic Baptism has 
shown that the development of such a power constitutes a 
baptism. And we have that conclusion reiterated by Am- 
brose, in declaring that the changed condition of the foun- 
tain of Myrrha was a baptism. 



148 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

So Ovid says of the fountain Salruacis, " vis est notissima 
fontis, . . . et incerto fontem medicamine tinxit." If tingo can 
express a quality imparted to the fountain Salmacis, why 
may not paicriZu* be used to express a quality imparted to the 
fountain Myrrha? The change from the primary meaning, 
is no greater in one case than in the other. The evidence 
that such change does take place, in fact, is as great in the 
latter case as in the former* 



BAPTISMS BY WATER 

CHANGE OF CONDITION THROUGH INFLUENCE. 

DELUGE PURIFICATION. 

Genesis 6 : 13 ; 7:1, 18, 22. 

1. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before 
me ; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and be- 
hold I will destroy them with the earth. 

7 : 1. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou, and all thy 
house, into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in 
this generation. 

Y. 18. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly 
upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 

Y. 22. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that 
was in the dry land, died. 

Interpretation. 

Quernadmodum enim post aquas diluvii, quibus iniquitas an- 
tiqua purgata est, post Baptismum (ut ita dixerim) mundi. — 
Tertullian, i, 1209. 

Nam ut in illo mundi baptismo, quo iniquitas antiqua purgata 
est, qui in area Noe non fuit non potuit per aquam salvatus fieri ; 
ita nee nunc potest per baptismum salvatus videri qui baptiz- 
atus in Ecclesia non est. — Cyprian, 1136. 

In diluvio quoque figuram baptism atis prascessisse hesterno 
coepimus disputare. Quid est diluvium, nisi in quo Justus ad 
seminarium justitise reservatur, peccatum moritur? . . . Nonne 
hoc et diluvium, quod est baptismum; quo peccata omnia diluun- 
tur, sola justi mens et gratia resuscitatur? — Ambrose, iii, 423. 



MUCH WATER AND THE THEORY. 149 

Non tani diluvium quam baptismum eontigisse. Baptismu3 
plane fuit, per quod in peccatoribus iniquitas sublata est, Noe 
justitia conservata. — iv, 650. 

TtjV o5v tou fia~7iG<ia7uq %dpw xa.TaxXiH7iJ.bv ijvofia£ei. — Basil, i, 304. 
Ka\ 6 xaraxluapoq . . . TzpaeyrJTeusv . . . tu>v dpapziwv xaftapiapov. — 
Didymus Alex., 696. 

Translation. 

" For as after the waters of the deluge, by which the old ini- 
quity was purged, after the baptism (as I might have said) of 
the world."— Tertullian, i, 1209. 

" For as in that baptism of the world, by which the old ini- 
quity was purged, he who was not in the ark of Noah, could not 
be saved, so, now, neither can he be saved who is not baptized 
in the church/' — Cyprian, 1136. 

" That a figure of baptism, in the deluge, also went before, we 
began to argue yesterday. What is the deluge, but that by which 
the righteous is preserved as a seed of righteousness, while sin 
perishes ? .... Is not this deluge the same as baptism, by 
which all sins are washed away, and the soul of the righteous, 
and grace alone, preserved V — Ambrose, iii, 423. 

"Not so much .a deluge, as a baptism, occurred. Baptism it 
clearly was, because, with sinners, iniquity was taken away; 
with Noah, righteousness was preserved." — iv, 650. 

" < The Lord inhabit eth the flood: (Ps. 28 : 10.) A flood is an over- 
flow of water, covering all that is under it, and purifying every 
defilement. Therefore he calls the grace of baptism a flood ; so 
that the soul washed from sin, and cleansed from the old man, 
may be, afterwards, a fit habitation of God, by his Spirit." — 
Basil, i, 304. 

" The deluge foretold the purification of sins." — Didy. At, 696. 

MUCH WATER AND THE THEORY. 

Here is an abundance of water. What will the friends of 
the theory do with it? There is "a complete covering." 
Will that answer the purpose? Dr. Carson thinks that he 
can get a dipping out of this deluge, by the help of figure. 
But, observe, his figure is a very different affair from that 
of Patrist exposition. They make one baptism, by its essen- 
tial nature, to figure another baptism to which it is generic- 



150 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

ally related ; but Carson calls on figure to help him make a 
baptism. As the facts of the deluge stand, outtopping the 
highest mountains by fifteen cubits, there is no dipping, and 
therefore (according to the theory) no baptism, for "baptism 
is dipping, and dipping is baptism." Now, Carson calls on 
figure to help him to change the facts, and claims a transac- 
tion — whose record contradicts his theory — as all on his side, 
after it has been made something else than it is. 

This ever recurring demand on figure to help a false theory 
out of trouble, reminds us of the constant necessity of the 
old astronomers to add cycle and epicycle to work on with 
their mistaken conception. There is difference, however, 
in the two cases; the astronomer hung appendages to his 
theory, to meet the facts, while the Baptist hangs append- 
ages to the facts, to meet his theory. 

This flood of waters, covering its object for a large portion 
of a year, lends but little comfort to those who accept some 
modification of the action, yet insist on a momentary cover- 
ing. The subject of baptism can no more be mastered with 
"momentary covering' 7 for a starting-point, than can un- 
shorn Samson be bound with seven green withes. Baptist 
argumentation is not susceptible of being amended. It must 
go back and start, ab initio^, with a new element of thought, 
and follow it through its developments. Old facts will, then, 
assume new aspects, and this delnge baptism will be quite 
intelligible. Figure and epicycle, alike, may be thrown aside 
when the true central thought has been secured. 

Besides the dipping of the world into the flood, by the 
help of figure, Carson speaks, repeatedly, throughout his 
book, of the baptism of Noah in the flood. This is his 
language: "What! Noah not immersed, when buried in 
the waters of the flood ? Are there no bounds to perverse- 
ness? Will men say everything rather than admit the mode 
of an ordinance of Christ, which is contrary to the command- 
ments of men?" (p. 388.) "What could be a more expres- 
sive burial in water than to be in the ark, when it was 
floating? As well might it be said that a person is not 
buried in earth, when lying in his coffin covered with earth. 



MUCH WATER AND THE THEORY. 151 

May not a person in a ship be said figuratively to be buried 
in the sea? They who were in the ark were deeply im- 
mersed." (p. 413.) " Noab and his family were saved by 
being buried in the water of the flood; and after the flood 
they emerged as rising from the grave." (p.' 462.) 

Will any one expect a sober answer to erratic imaginings 
like these? The expositor who is willing to follow a rigid 
theory to issues like these, and indorse to bankruptcy its 
demands on common sense, must look for the issuing, at 
the next session of the court, of a writ de lunatico inquirendo. 
"Much theory doth make thee mad," honest though not 
courteous, truth-loving though not sober-minded, Carson! 

It is a reproach to truth to admit the claims of so poor 
a counterfeit, even to a hearing. "Noah and his family" 
(beasts, birds, and creeping things,) "buried in the flood and 
emerging" (on the summit of Ararat) "as from the grave!" 
What next? 

SPECIAL VALUE. 

There is an especial value in this case of Deluge Baptism 
as enabling us to point out, within itself, some of the " many 
kinds of baptisms." 

1. If we regard the earth merely as a physical body and 
the water as encompassing it, we have an illustration of a 
simple mersion (baptism) without influence. 

2. If we regard the earth as having cultivated fields, houses, 
cities, works of art, then this universal deluge becomes a 
mersion (baptism) with influence, ruinous in its character. 

3. If we take into view men, inhabiting the world and 
unrepenting sinners against God, for whose punishment this 
flood of waters was sent, then, it becomes a mersion (bap- 
tism) for influence, designed to destroy — to drown men. 

4. But neither of these is the baptism contemplated, and 
drawn out from the case, by the Patrists. They regarded 
the earth as defiled and needing to be purified — O aqua, 
quae humano aspersum sanguine, ut praesentium lavacrorum 
figura prsecederet, orbem terrarum lavisti ! [Ambrose, ii, 
1815.) The world is here represented as polluted by murder^ 



152 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

being "sprinkled with human blood," and as cleansed by 
being " washed" by the deluge waters. This, then, was con- 
ceived of, not as a physical mersion, but as a baptism for 
religious purification, accomplished by water through its 
quality, divinely communicated, to purge and sanctify. 

But it may be asked, Was not the water, in fact, used in 
the form of mersion ? Undoubtedly, yet not as a necessity, 
but accident, which may or may not be in such baptism. 
Cloth dyed (J3dizra>) may be dyed by dipping (pdnroj) : yet " dip- 
ping" is not an essential to " dyeing," but an accident which 
may or may not be -present. In a baptism for purification, 
mersion, in like manner, may or may not be present. And 
whenever present it is not to be regarded as a feature, much 
less the feature of the baptism; any more than dipping, when 
it chances to be the form, is to be regarded as the dyeing. 
Proof of this may be found in a perfectly analogous case 
from Chrysosiom, ii, 409. 

'Eizecdi] Tiaaa rj yri tots dy.ddapro^ yv axo zoo xa7zvou, xai rrfi xviaar^, 
xai tojv eidwXuojv aipdrwv, xai tojv aXXwv poXuapaJv tojv ' EAhjvtxaiv. 

"When the whole earth was, then, defiled by the smoke, 
and fume, and blood of idol sacrifices, and other pollutions. 
. . . But Christ having come, and having suffered without 
the city, he purified the whole earth (xaaav rfy y9jv hdfaqpe). 99 
How this was done is stated, more definitely, in a few lines 
preceding: 

"Eara^e yap to aufia and Tr t q nXsupaq kizi vqv yrjv, xa\ zov iJ.oXuap.ov aurv^ 
anavra etfexdOypev. 

"For the blood from his side dropped upon the earth, 
and thoroughly purged away the pollution." 

We have, here, evidence that a world may be defiled by 
all manner of pollution, and instead of a necessity for a mer- 
sion in water, outtopping all mountain tops, in order to its 
purification, drops of blood falling from the spear-pierced side are 
adequate for the purification of all the earth. 

To the objection that the word "baptism" is not used in 
this latter case, it may be replied, 1. All the facts — condition 
to be removed, pollution; mode of remedy, dropping blood; 
condition effected, purification ; as well as all the terms em- 



MUCH WATER AND THE THEORY. 153 

ployed, are identical with the facts and terms in other cases 
to which the title of "baptism" is given. 2. A secondary 
use of "baptism" covering this case is in proof. 3. We 
shall yet have overwhelming evidence establishing the same 
point. 4. A mersion baptism is distinctly repudiated in the 
present case, and a baptism for purification is presented. 

"The old iniquity teas purged by the waters of the deluge," 
therefore, (not because of the covering,) it is called "a bap- 
tism of the world." " The deluge is the same as baptism " — 
Why ? Because they both " wash sins away." The dropping 
blood from the Redeemer's side is the same as baptism — 
Why? Because it "washes sin away." "Not so much a 
deluge as a baptism." What does this mean ? Not so much 
a deluge as a dipping, an immersion, a covering f Is not this 
an utterly impossible, absurd, interpretation ? Is it not ex- 
pressly said, — " because sin was removed and righteousness 
established?" Could there be a more explicit distinction 
between a deluge and a baptism? And so, Basil, i, 304, 
" A flood is an overflow of water, covering all that is under 
it and purifying every defilement." Therefore he calls the 
grace of baptism a flood, (' the Lord inhabiteih the flood] Ps. 
28 : 10,) because it cleanses the soul. A flood covers to bap- 
tize, to cleanse physically; it can only cleanse what it covers; 
but "grace" baptizes (cleanses) the soul, and "redeeming 
blood" baptizes (cleanses) the world, without covering it. 

While, therefore, the Deluge presents an example of pri- 
mary baptism in which the earth is mersed, by the varied 
acts of water falling from heaven's windows and rising from 
the bursting fountains of the deep, and kept for most of a 
year in this state; still, it is a patent fact, that this baptism 
is not regarded in the reference to the transaction in the 
passages before us; but another, and wholly different bap- 
tism, namely, a purification by these waters, irrespective of 
the form of their operation, in which they see a figure of 
that baptism which is the highest and fullest of all purifica- 
tions. 

If such a case as this fails to lend help to the theory, where 
will it look for succor ? 



154 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 



CHANGE OF CONDITION THEOUGH SPECIAL INFLUENCE 
DIVINELY IMPAKTED. 

JORDAN HEALING. 
II Kings 5 : 14. 

"Then went he down and dipped himself seven times in 
Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his 
flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was 
clean." 

SeptuaginL 

Kdi xarifirj NatpAv xai i/SaTircffaro iv rai ' 'Iopddyy iradxiq xard to pr t p.a 
1 EXiaaii - f xai ixiffrpefev 7} oapq durov toq caps naidapiou pixpov, xai ixa- 
dapiadri. 

"And Naaman went down and baptized (purified) himself in 
the Jordan seven times, according to the word of Elisha; and 
his flesh came again like the flesh of a little child, and he was 
made pure/' 

Examination. 

All trespassers are warned from this ground as belonging 
by unquestionable right to friends of the theory. A mere 
claim of ownership will hardly pass unchallenged. All 
ground which is covered by fair title-deeds, or all that has 
been won by sword and spear, in fair conflict, we will cheer- 
fully yield. Let us see how the documents read, and under 
what right possession is claimed. 

Baptist Claim for a Dipping. 
Carson (pp. 59-61, 313-317) vindicates the claim of the 
theory with a force and positiveness not excelled, certainly, 
by any other Baptist writer. His points are the following : 

1. "The word occurs in the Greek translation of the Old 
Testament, and is faithfully rendered dip in our version. — II 
Kings 5 : 14." (p. 59.) 

2. " That the Greek word signifies dip, is clear from the 
fact that this is the meaning of the word in the original." 

3. "He did what was commanded. It is described as an 



BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 155 

immersion. He bathed, and consequently lie immersed. That 
Naaman was immersed is as certain as that the word of God 
speaks truth. He was enjoined to bathe. Was not his dip- 
ping a fulfilment of the command to bathe?" 

4. " If a word is proved to dip one object, it may dip an- 
other. Naaman went down and dipped himself seven times." 

Carson's Points Examined. — 1. " The word (PairrfZa)) in the 
Greek translation (II Kings 5 : 14) is faithfully rendered dip 
in our version." If any one else had made such a state- 
ment, he would have been bespattered with "Attic salt." 
None knows better than Dr. C., that "our version" is not 
made from the Septuagint, and therefore could not have 
translated this Greek word — "dip." 

2. " The Greek word means dip, because the Hebrew 
word means dip." Such a position has no reliable founda- 
tion. Of a similar position taken by an opponent — that 
panT&Q) must mean wash, because it fulfils a command given 
by Xouijj, which means to wash — he says (p. 61): "Lexicog- 
raphers, critics, and commentators, receive this as a first 
priuciple, but are imposed on by a mere figment." Again, 
of a writer who takes identically the same position as to the 
translation of Isaiah 21 : 4, which Dr. C. takes as to II Kings 
5 : 14 — namely, that the Greek word of the Septuagint must 
mean the same as the Hebrew word translated — he says: 
"Were this the assertion of all the lexicographers in exist- 
ence, it is false and extravagantly foolish." (p. 315.) That 
is to say, when Dr. C. thinks that a translating word is of 
the same precise value as the translated word, the principle 
which would make the translation measure the height, and 
depth, and length, and breadth of the original, is true and 
surpassingly wise; but, when he thinks differently, then the 
principle becomes "false and extravagantly foolish." It is 
certainly a very admirable tiling to have an autocratic critic, 
who can never err, even when he utters contradictions. On 
this general subject, of exact correspondence between the 
Septuagint and the Hebrew text, Principal Fairbairn says: 
" The Septuagint is far from being a close translation. They 
who always expect to find in it the key to the exact mean- 



156 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

ing of particular words and phrases, are by no means to be 
trusted." {Herman. Man., p. 62.) 

As illustrative of the correctness of this remark, and, at 
the same time, exhibiting a parallelism with the passage 
under consideration, we may refer to Psalm 50 : 9. Here, 
for the Hebrew text, (which signifies to- purify, by using a 
religious rite, without' expressing any definite action,) the 
Septuagint substitutes the sharply definite act, sprinkle, by 
which the purification was accomplished. The principle is 
the same in II Kings, only its development is reversed. In 
the Hebrew we have a word expressive of definite act, and, 
in the translation, we have a condition, which includes that, 
and many other acts, which may be causative of such condi- 
tion. The Hebrew, " purify with hyssop," (which, on the face 
of it, involves sprinkling, since " hyssop " was only used for 
this mode of purifying,) the Septuagint translates, "sprinkle 
with hyssop." In like manner $a.itTi£,w includes sprinkling 
as one of many modes by which its demanded Judaic purifi- 
cation may be met. And this purification may be, was, 
termed a washing. Both these points' are exhibited in the 
passage from the Son of Sirach, already considered. 

How ungrounded is Dr. Carson's conclusion as to the 
meaning of the Greek word, from the meaning (real or sup- 
posed) of the Hebrew word, I need not farther say. 

3. " He was enjoined to bathe." He was not enjoined to 
bathe. To wash and to bathe are not measures of each 
other. "He bathed in fact." There is no sure evidence of 
such fact. "He dipped himself." Satisfying evidence is want- 
ing. " He immersed himself ." "Where is the proof ? 

In justification of the rejection of these statements, I appeal 
to the usage both of the Hebrew and Greek words in ques- 
tion. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word, for wash, 
requires a dipping, or an immersion, or a bathing, in the more 
common sense of that word, covering the body in water. 
They are used where the washings are local, and where the 
water is applied to the body, and the body is not put into 
the water. 

The Hebrew word, which is translated dip, has, undoubt- 



BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 157 

edly, "to dip" as its primary meaning; but this does not 
justify Dr. C. in the dogmatic assertion, based on the word, 
that a dipping of Xaaman took place on this occasion. The 
word has other meanings. It answers to fidi:™ in Greek, 
and tingo in Latin. Like these words, it has the twofold 
radical application, to dip and to dye, with subordinate modi- 
fications springing out of both these meanings. A glance 
into the Concordance of Buxtorf or of Fiirst, particularly 
the former, will show that 12® and P5^> * n Hebrew, cor- 
respond with fidmcD and fta-Kri^o) in Greek, tingo and mergo 
in Latin, and dip and immerse in English. Hebrew litera- 
ture being comparatively limited, we cannot expect to find 
as many illustrations of varied use, as in other languages. 
But that the Hebrew word does not necessarily mean to dip, 
covering completely, or to dip at all, is shown by its use in 
Genesis 37 : 31, of which the translation by the Septuagint 

IS — xai £/jLO/.u»a<; rbv ynibva tu> ai/xarc — " and they Stained the COat 

(Joseph's) with the blood/' Our Version is, " they dipped 
the coat in the blood." Whichever translation be preferred, 
two things are certain: 1. The Greek translators believed 
that the Hebrew word had more than one meaning. 2. The 
object of the verb is not necessarily covered by the action 
of the verb, and therefore no immersion, no baptism takes 
place. Joseph's coat could not be covered by the blood of a 
kid, any more than the lake by the blood of a frog. An im- 
mersion of the whole body is not necessarily got out of a dip- 
ping. The word, of itself, neither dips nor covers Naaman. 
But still farther. In I Chronicles 26 : 11, we find this 
Hebrew word in combination with that of Jehovah, as a 
proper name, the import of which, as given by Gesenius, is, 
"Whom Jehovah has immersed, i. e. y has purified." JSTow, 
inasmuch as this eminent Hebraist finds the meaning of 
purification growing out of this modal verb, used in ritual 
purification; and inasmuch as the Greek translators (in Ps. 
50 : 9) find the modal verb sprinkle, expressive of purification; 
and inasmuch as the correspondent Latin modal verb tingo 
— sparsa aqua iingere corpus — is used to express purification; 
and inasmuch as, in this passage, the Greek translators have 



158 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

represented this modal verb by a word which has been proven 
to express purification in connection with Jewish rites, is he 
not a bold man who will affirm that this word could not have 
secured to itself the idea of purification, but must signify a 
naked dipping? 

But Dr. Carson is not satisfied with assertion which makes 
nothing of facts like these. He must make the divine ve- 
racity depend upon his judgment of a Hebrew word. " That 
Naaman was immersed, is as certain as the word of God 
speaks truth." When the theorists make the "Christian 
honesty" of the general church to kick the beam, weighed 
against their knowledge of a Greek word, I have nothing 
to say. When the Tubbermore Theorist birches " the angel 
Gabriel," and "sends him to school" for ignorantly differ- 
ing from him in matters of exegesis, I am quite satisfied that 
they should settle their own quarrel. But when any man 
makes God's truthfulness to depend on his Hebrew knowl- 
edge, or any other knowledge, then I indignantly fling in 
his face those words which the Holy Ghost teacheth, " Let 
God be true, but every man a liar /" 

4. But one other point remains to be considered. " If a 
word is proved to dip one object, it may dip another," (pro- 
vided it is of a like character.) I can readily understand 
what is done when it is said, " He dips his pen in the ink;" 
"He dips his hand in the water;" but when it is said, "2s"aa- 
man dipped himself in the water," I confess that I do not 
find, in the words, any such distinct statement as to what was 
done. Can a man dip himself as he dips his hand ? Can 
you possibly tell from the Hebrew word what was done in 
a self-dipping? If, in effecting a self- dipping, the whole 
transaction must be modified in comparison with the dip- 
ping of anything else, may it not be true that there is such 
a modification of meaning that there is no dipping at all? 
May not the object of the verb be something else than the 
person of Naaman ? Is it not unusual to employ this word 
in connection with a dipping of the whole person? Is there 
any other case of the kind in the Bible? Is it not unusual 
in any other language to use this word to express a dipping 



BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 159 

of the entire person? Is not, strictly speaking, self-dipping 
an impossibility? Is there not strong reason to believe 
that this disease was local? (See v. 11.) May not this dis- 
eased spot (well understood between the prophet and Naa- 
man, and therefore not mentioned) have been the object of 
the verb, both in the command and in the execution of the 
command ? 

But farther. He was to dip "seven times;" and Carson 
says, "from head to foot." Did he come out of the water 
each time, and go in afresh, until the seventh time? Or, 
having gone into the water, and having dipped what was 
out of water, more or less, did he, remaining in the water, 
dip again and again, head, &c, seven times? If this was 
the process, then it must be admitted that he did not dip 
himself, " from head to foot," seven times, and that, after all, 
this dipping was but that of a part of the person. 

When we examine this case, interpreted as self-dipping, 
there is much about it which the theory leaves unillumined. 

There may have been good reason why the translators re- 
jected the simply modal character of the word, and gave, as 
its representative, one which never means "dip," but is al- 
ways expressive of condition, and, Judaically, of a purified 
condition, which is just what the case demands. 

But Dr. Carson objects: " If fianziru) here expresses puri- 
fication, then there were seven purifications." A reference 
to Psalm 12 : 7, "The words of the Lord are pure, .... 
as silver 'purified seven times" will show that such conjunc- 
tion of words is allowable. Tertullian, ii, 575, is not alarmed 
by seven purifications. He represents the case as showing 
forth pow T er to cleanse the seven capital sins of the Gen- 
tile nations: "Idololatria, blasphemia, homicidio, adulterio, 
stupro, falso testimonio, fraude. Quapropter septies quasi 
per singulos titulos in Jordane lavit, simul et ut totius heb- 
domadis caperet expiationem; quia unins lavacri vis et pleni- 
tudo Christo soli dicabatur." " Wherefore he washes" (not 
dips) "in the Jordan seven times, as if for the several sins, and 
that he might receive expiation from all seven at once; for the 
power and fulness of one washing belonged to Christ alone." 



160 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

Dr. Fuller, justly honored with high position among his 
brethren, has written on baptism, and examined this par- 
ticular passage. He thus pleads for fair dealing : "Should 
any one review this argument, I only ask that he will quote me 
fairly, and show me as a brother where the flaw is, and I will 
confess it." I cannot review his book, but will try to quote 
" fairly " his words. To prove the facility and accuracy with 
which ^arai^o) can be translated he says: " In short, the trans- 
lators of our Bible have, themselves, exposed the pretext that there 
is any difficulty as to the word baptizo. In the case of Naaman, 
the Septuagint uses baptizo, and the translation renders it 
* clip.' Then went he down and dipped (ebaptisato)" (p. 11). 
The italics are Dr. Fuller's. I have read this statement over 
once, twice, thrice, and twice thrice, feeling that it could 
not possibly mean, what on its face it seemed to mean; but 
there were the staring words charging a band of men, "of 
whom the world was not worthy," with coldly planned 
hypocrisy, and basing that charge upon the statement of a 
fact, not one syllable of which, as relating to those men, was 
true. As to the first of these charges — " pretext of difficulty in 
translating baptizo " — I will quote the words of a Baptist scholar 
(after reading Classic Baptism), whom Dr. Fuller would 
cheerfully confess to have but few peers among Baptist 
scholars; they are as follows: " You have certainly shown how 
difficult it is to frame a definition of the act of baptism, that shall 
be free from objection, and satisfactory even to Baptists themselves" 
If this authority is not sufficient to suffuse with shame the 
charge of "pretext of difficulty," then let me refer Dr. F. to 
Classic Baptism, (pp. 242-4,) where he will find sufficiently 
"exposed" the pretext that there is no difficulty in translat- 
ing pa-xTi'io, in the case of the Rev. Richard Fuller, D.D. As 
to the second statement: that "dip" in II Kings 5:14, is 
a translation of fiaitrilio, out of the Septuagint; a statement 
made in, and for, an important issue, it is simply shocking. 
Dr. Carson knew that it was not true. Dr. Fuller knew that 
it was not true. Did the} 7 , then, design to sustain their cause 
by a designed appeal to an untruth? By no means. The 
case is illustrative of the ruinous effects of assumption and 



BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 161 

presumption. These writers assume identity of value be- 
tween the Hebrew word and the Greek word, and then 
presume that it is of no consequence whether they speak of 
the translation of one word or the other. The assumption 
is false; the presumption is monstrous. I am sorry to say, 
that this style of argumentation by friends of the theory is 
not limited to the present case. They write as though they 
were absolved from all the laws of language which interfere 
with their idolized theory, and not satisfied with saying that 
" idiocy" and "childhood" confess the truth of their princi- 
ples, go on to proclaim, that if men, and angels, aye, and the 
Deity, too, do not say "it is so" it is because there is no truth 
in them ! 

I do not present this error of fact as a u flaw in the argu- 
ment;" it is a bottomless pit, down into which the whole 
statement plunges out of sight. 

This case is resumed (p. 38) thus : "The instance where it 
occurs literally is in the history of Naaman. . . . Here, in 
a work known by Jesus, and cited by him, we find baptizo, 
and it is admitted on all hands to mean immerse. Jesus uses 
the same word, and thus commands the very same act. 
'Naaman went down and dipped himself seven times (ebap- 
tizato) in the Jordan.' All concede that this was immersion. 
Now Jesus commands this very act. . . . The Septuagint 
says, "Naaman 'ebaptisato en to Iordane.' ... In Matthew 
3:6 we are told that the people, 'ebaptizonto en tolordaue,' 
the very same expression." 

Review of argument. — 1. When Dr. Fuller says, "it occurs 
literally," i. e. in primary physical sense, he assumes a vital 
point. It is in proof that the word is used otherwise. The 
assumption of a particular use, determinative of the question, 
is " flaw" number one. 

2. "It is admitted on all hands to mean immerse." It is 
not admitted to mean " immerse" in the sense to dip. It is 
not admitted to mean "immerse" as representing any defi- 
nite act. It is not admitted to mean "immerse," only, or, 
at all, in the Baptist use of that word. This second assump- 
tion is " flaw" number two. 

11 



162 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

3. "Jesus uses the same word, and thus commands the 
very same act." The assumption that the use of the same 
word must convey the same idea, embodying the assumption 
that the word did convey but one idea in the days of the 
Septuagint translators, and the farther assumption that it did 
continue for centuries after to convey but one idea, is "flaw" 
number three. "Commands the very same act." The as- 
sumption that any form of act was ever commanded, being 
utterly groundless, is "flaw" number four, Dr. Fuller being 
himself judge; for (p. 29) he tells us, no form of act is com- 
manded, " it matters not how the immersion is effected." . 

4. "All concede that this was immersion." The assump- 
tion of such concession being without foundation, constitutes 
"flaw" number Jive. 

5. " Now Jesus commands this very act." The assumption 
in this assertion placing Dr. F., again, in antagonism with 
Dr. F., as well as with the anti-theorists, we have "flaw" 
number six. 

6. "The Septuagint says, ' baptized en to Iorclane;' the 
New Testament says, ' baptized en to Iordane ; ' the very 
same expression." The assumption that the same expression 
in a limited phrase, carries with it sameness in all governing 
particulars, though the usage be separated by centuries, is 
without warrant in common sense' or exegetical law. 

"The wool was bapted in the dyehouse to free it from all 
greasy quality." "The wool was bapted in the dyehouse a 
scarlet color." Dr. Fuller will admit that the same phrase, 
here, does not carry with it the same meaning. To assume 
that "baptized in the Jordan" in connection with a miracu- 
lous cure of leprosy, must mean the same thing when used 
generations after, under another dispensation, and in con- 
nection with a religious rite, is "flaw" number seven. 

Perhaps we ought to thank Dr. Fuller that he has not 
taken under his patronage — "went down and dipped seven 
times in Jordan," (as assumption number eight,) the usual 
argument of his friends — "went down into the water" and 
thus proved (?) a dipping. 

This sevenfold dipping baptism suggests the following 



BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 163 

problem : If Naaman was baptized seven times in the Jordan 
and benefited by it, how many times must Aristobulus have 
been baptized in the fish-pool to have been drowned by it? 
We commit this question to the charge of the arithmetical 
section of the friends of the theory. 

Jewish translators. — Having looked at this passage from the 
Baptist point of view, one that turns on the performance of 
an act, I now remark that it is of importance to bear in mind 
that the translators of the Septuagint were Jews. The Jews 
used the word ,3a-r>*oj in their religious rites to express, as 
has been proved, a change of condition irrespective of the per- 
formance of any particular act. Now, in this transaction we 
have a change of condition identical with that, removal of 
leprosy, secured by some of their religious rites; and for 
such change of condition the ordinary use of panrtCu}, express- 
ing a purified condition, is appropriate. It is proper to at- 
tribute its appearance in the passage to such national use, 
rather than to make it the translation of a word, with which, 
in its primary meaning, it is never, in the Septuagint nor in 
the Classics, used as an equivalent. 

Patrists. — The Patristic view of the passage sustains this 
conclusion. Ambrose (ii, 426,) says: Diximus figuram prae- 
cessisse in Jordan e, quando Naaman leprosus ille mundatus 
est. . . . Ergo habes iinum baptisma. "We have said that 
a figure of baptism preceded in the Jordan, when Naaman, 
that leper, was cleansed. . . . Thus you have one kind of 
baptism. " The baptism is made to centre in the changed 
condition, — the healing and consequent cleansing. And this 
changed condition is attributed to a peculiar power of the 
water, and not to the manner of using it. Quid ergo signi- 
ficat? Yidisti aquam; sed non aqua omnis sanat; sed aqua 
sanat, qua? habet gratiam Christi. (422.) " What, then, does 
it signify? Thou hast seen the water; but all water does 
not heal, but that water heals which has the grace of Christ." 
The healing of Xaamau did not depend upon the manner 
of his using the waters of the Jordan, but upon the divinely 
imparted power. The prophet specified no form of use. In 
whatever form he used them, had he used them in a different 



164 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

form, they would have been equally efficacious. The Pa- 
trists make the baptism consist in the effect produced, not 
in the manner of use, and thus agree with the Septuagint 
translators. Mode of use being neither enjoined nor of con- 
trolling value. We conclude then; if there was any dipping 
in this case, it belongs exclusively to the Hebrew word; 
which word no more controls the meaning of paitTgat, than 
does fia-KTU) to which, and not to /3a^r:t^, it is related in all 
its Hebrew use. 



DISEASED CONDITION CHANGED TO CONDITION OF 
HEALTH. 

BETHESDA HEALING. 
John 5:4. 

" For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool 
and troubled the water; whosoever then first after the troubling 
of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease 
he had." 

c ovv Tzp(bro<z IfJ.ftd.'Z (isra tyjV Tapa%i]V rod uda~oz oy&iq lyivezo. 

Figure of Baptism. 

Tunc curabatur unus, nunc omnes sanantur. ISTon sanat bap- 
tismus perfidorum, non mundat, sed polluit. 

Ergo et ilia piscina in figura: ut credas quia in hunc fontem 
vis divina descendit. 

Habes quartum genus (baptismatis) in piscina, quando move- 
batur aqua. — Ambrose, iii, 395, 426. 

" Then one was cured, now all are healed. The baptism of 
the unbelieving does not heal, it does not cleanse, but pollutes." 

" Then, that pool is for a figure : that you may believe that 
a divine power descends into this fountain." 

" You have a fourth kind of baptism in the pool, when the 
water was troubled." — Ambrose, iii, 395, 426. 

BAPTISM BY THE POOL OF BETHESDA. 

Although this transaction is recorded in the ^"ew Testa- 
ment, it belongs to the Jewish economy and not to the 



BAPTISM BY THE POOL OF BETHESDA. 165 

Christian. It is introduced here because of its essential 
unity with that class of baptisms now under consideration. 
A purgative power, beyond that merely physically washing 
quality which belongs to all water, was attributed to the 
Deluge. To the Jordan water, as used by Naaman, was 
communicated a curative power, not belonging to Arbana 
or Pharpar, or inherently to the Jordan itself. The same is 
true with regard to the waters of Bethesda. The usual 
qualities of water belonged to them at all times; but " at a 
certain season" an additional quality was divinely imparted 
to them, by means of which they exercised a controlling in- 
fluence over any disease subjected to their power, relieving 
the sufferer and restoring him to perfect soundness of boch\ 

Special Points. — 1. If there is anything determined beyond 
controversy, as to this pool, it is that its power to baptize ivas 
limited to a certain time. Ambrose is entirely explicit on this 
point: "You have a fourth kind of baptism in the pool, 
when the water was troubled." Now there was not one particle 
of water added to the contents of the pool at the time of this 
troubling. Its capability for baptism, therefore, did not arise 
from increased depth of water. If it had capacity for physi- 
cal mersion at this time, it had the same capacity every day 
in the year. But it could baptize at this time, and it could 
not baptize at any other time. No water being added in the 
one case, and none being subtracted in the other, it follows, 
therefore, with the same rigid necessity, as does the conclu- 
sion in any demonstrated mathematical proposition, that the 
baptism spoken of cannot be a physical mersion. 

2. This conclusion is sealed by fact, superadded to logic, 
showing that no physical mersion took place when this soli- 
tary baptism took place. The baptism was effected, neither 
by the party dipping himself, nor by being dipped by any 
one else, but by " stepping in " (Ijm fids) the troubled water. 
"Whether these waters reached to "the ankles," or to " the 
knees," or to "the loins," as in EzekiePs vision, we are not 
told ; but we are told that, entering in — though it wet but the 
soles of the feet, as of the priests bearing the ark through 
Jordan — effected a baptism, thoroughly changed the dis- 



166 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

eased condition, and brought into a condition of health. 
But some earnest friend of the theory may cry : " Hold ! Xo 
dipping? Why, for what else did he 'enter in' the water, 
but for a dipping ? Could he not have been sprinkled out of 
the water? And, as for one to do the dipping, where was 
the angel? Did not he, too, 'go down into the water* — both 
the angel and the sick man — and why, if not to dip into the 
water ? No dipping ! "What but ' a lack of Christian honesty ' 
could resist such convincing evidence?'* Well, I will con- 
cede this much: the evidence for this angel dipping, is quite 
as convincing as in some other cases, which we may look at 
by and by. 

3. A third point, claiming to be brought into bolder relief 
by distinct mention, is the presence, in this transaction, of a 
thorough change of condition. Proof is needless. It is the sine 
qua non feature of the whole affair, as it is also of every bap- 
tism. Its presence is full justification for Ambrose in call- 
ing it " a fourth kind of baptism." 

4. The position occupied by this " troubled"' water, in 
relation to the baptism, is that of efficient agency, and not 
of a receiving element. 

If this point be established, the theory at once vanishes 
into thin air. In every primary physical mersion, there are 
always present a baptizer, or a baptizing agency, a baptized 
object, and a receiving element, within which the baptized 
object finds its rest, and enters upon its changed condition. 
The Baptist theory affirms that Panzi'a) represents nothing 
but a definite form of action, carrying its object within the 
element, and, without resting there, bringing it out again. 
This notion has been so utterly ground into impalpable pow- 
der, between the millstones of facts, that we may let it go, 
for the present, to the winds. But some theorist may say: 
"Suppose the definite act be abandoned as an error, still 
there remains a covering over, and here, as our final refuge, 
we fight our last battle." To this we reply: It is necessary 
to determine whether this "covering over" is essentially 
transient or of indefinite continuauce. If the former, then 
we are brought back to a dipping under another name. If 



BAPTISM BY THE POOL OF BETHESDA. 167 

the latter, then all the radical results flowing from this new- 
position, must be accepted. But, whether accepted or not, 
as we aim, not merely at the overthrow of a mistaken theory 
of a word, but to establish truth, we proceed to show that a 
baptism is not limited, as the amended theory would affirm, 
to the enclosure of an object within a fluid, but that a fluid, 
present in a baptism, may be there, not as a receiving ele- 
ment, but as an efficient agency, effecting a baptism — change 
of condition without any enclosure. 

In support of this position, I appeal, 1. To those multi- 
plied cases adduced in Classic Baptism, in which study, grief, 
questions, disease, are represented as agencies in effecting bap- 
tisms, where physical covering is impossible, and where im- 
aginary covering is never stated nor intimated. 2. To those 
cases mentioned in Classic Baptism, where a fluid element 
is employed as the agency in effecting the baptism, without 
any covering. (1.) Hot iron, baptized by water, as agency, 
without covering, bringing it into a cold condition (p. 325). 
(2.) Intoxicating w T ine, baptized by water, as agency, not 
covering it, but mixed through it, and bringing it into an 
unintoxicating condition (p. 339). (3.) Water, itself, im- 
pregnated with an intoxicating principle, and baptizing, as 
an agency, by drinking, bringing into a changed condition, 
resembling that of a drunken man (p. 330). (4.) Wine, as 
an agency, baptizing men by its intoxicating quality without 
covering, by drinking, bringing into a condition of drunken- 
ness (pp. 316-342). 3. To the case in hand, where the water 
is impregnated, not with an intoxicating principle, but with 
a sanative power, the influence of which was to be developed, 
not by drinking, but by contact. A baptism is effected; the 
condition of the diseased man is thoroughly changed; there 
is no "covering over;" the result is not due to water as a 
fluid, but as a vehicle through which divine power is com- 
municated, which divine power is exerted without calling 
into exercise the covering quality of water. 

If these facts do not establish the position, that water, 
wine, or any other fluid, (possessed of a quality capable of 
controlling condition without mersion,) is capable of baptizing 



168 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

as an agency, without acting as a receiving element, then 
evidence has lost its power to control conclusions. But if 
they do suffice to establish this position, then, the amended 
theory, "covering over" — last refuge of its friends — perishes 
without remedy. 

5. This baptism by — not dipping in 9 nor covered with — 
Bethesda water, proves that JSTaaman was baptized by the in- 
fluence communicated through the water of Jordan, and that 
his baptism consisted in his changed bodily condition as to 
the leprosy, and not in his dipping — supposing that to have 
been present in the transaction. The same is true as to the 
baptism of the world by the deluge water. There was a bap- 
tism here of the world in the waters ; but it is not that baptism 
to which attention is directed, but the cleansing of the world 
from its sin-defilements, by the agency of these world-em- 
bracing waters. Therefore Ambrose (iii, 426) groups them 
all together: " Ergo habes unum baptisma (quando JSTaaman 
leprosus ille mundatus est), aliud in diluvio, habes tertium 
genus, quando in mari Rubro baptizati sunt patres, habes 
quarlum genus in piscina, quando movebatur aqua." All 
these are baptisms by changes of condition, through water 
as the agency, and not as a receiving element. And they 
are of " one," and " another," and a " third," and a " fourth " 
genus of baptism. "Malta sunt genera baptismatum" 

6. We have the clearest proof that the ground on which 
Ambrose rests, in calling all these cases baptisms, is the 
change of condition, which is the central truth presented in 
each. And it is this feature of their baptism — a thoroughly 
changed condition — which, in Ambrose's view, qualifies a 
purified world, a purified Israel, a purified IsTaaman, a puri- 
fied Bethesdaite, to be a "figure " of that higher, holier, per- 
fect baptism, effected through the water impregnated with 
the purifying and soul-regenerating influences of the Holy 
Spirit, in which he and other Patrists so fully believed. 



BAPTISM BY WASHING. ICO 



WATER APPLIED TO THE BODY WITH DIVERSITY OF FORM 
AND EXTENT. 

BAPTISM BY WASHING. 

Leviticus 15 : 5. 

"And whosoever toucheth his bed, shall cleanse his clothes 
and wash himself with water, and be unclean until the even." 

Interpretation. 

Tivoq dk Mvsxev im to /jaTcrcff/xa epyerai 6 XptffToc avayxauov efaeiVj xai 
£-} izoiov zpyj.za.1 ^dizTiapa .... BdiiTiapa rp to ' IouSalxov, to punwv 
GCUfxaTUtbv a-ailaTTov , do twv xolto. to ffwetddq dfiapTyfiaTtov .... 
AouaeTai yap to aibpa auToo udaTi xaftapw. 

" But it is necessary to say why Christ comes for baptism, and 
for what baptism he comes. For this is as necessary to know as 
that. And it is necessary to teach your love the latter first, 
because from the latter you may learn the former. The baptism 
was Judaic ; that which takes away bodily defilement; not that 
which takes away sins of conscience. For if one should commit 
adultery, or be guilty of theft, or should transgress in any such 
way, it would not take away his guilt; but if any one should 
touch the bones of the dead, if any one should taste food not 
appointed by the law, if any should be near corruption, if any 
one was in company with lepers, he washed and was unclean 
until evening, and then was clean. For it is said, ' He shall 
wash his body with pure water, and shall be unclean till even- 
ing, and then he shall be clean/ " (Lev. 15 : 5, seqq.) — Chrysostom, 
ii, 366. 

Oudk p.TjV t3v axo tTj'Z xclto. ffu^uytau xoittjSj otj.oitoq wq xdXou, pen:- 
Ti^efTifat /.at vbv -poffTdfftrst i] Oeta dtd Kupioo Tzpovota . . . . ra izuXXd 
Mwuoiioq dl ivd$ -spt?>a{jwv i3u7ZTt<j/j.aToq. 

"Divine providence, through the Lord, does not now, as for- 
merly, command to be baptized from the conjugal bed . . . em- 
bracing, by one baptism, the many baptisms of Moses." — Clemens 
Alex., i, 1184. 



170 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 



JUDAIC BAPTISM — BAPTISM FROM THE BED. 

" For what baptism he comes. 7 ' This statement implies a 
diversity of nature in baptisms. Ambrose, as we have seen, 
expressly affirms this: "Malta sunt genera baptismatum" 
There are many kinds of baptisms. Chrysostom tells us 
"what kind" of baptism this was, and says, that "the kind 
of baptism" which the Saviour received, will explain why 
he received baptism at all. The nature of some baptisms 
was such as to cause embarrassment at the thought of the 
Saviour receiving them. Such a baptism was that by which 
" sins of conscience " were taken away ; and this was the 
baptism claimed to be administered in Chrysostom's day. 
But the Saviour had no such sins to take away. How then 
could he receive this kind of baptism; and, if he did not re- 
ceive this kind of baptism, what kind did he receive ? Such 
difficulties and queries could not but arise under Patristic 
teaching, and " the Golden Mouth " Bishop sets himself to 
answer them. In doing so, he declares that the baptism 
which Christ received was not Christian baptism, nor Jo- 
hannic baptism, nor Classic baptism, but "Judaic baptism." 
He then expounds the distinguishing peculiarity of this kind 
of baptism. He does not make the difference to lie in dip- 
ping forward, or backward, or sideways, or standing, or 
kneeling; nor yet in being " wholly covered" by a sweeping 
torrent, or rising flood, or falling wave. Fortunately, or un- 
fortunately, this modern theory of diverse baptism was un- 
known to this eloquent and learned Grecian. His explana- 
tion turns on the different influences possessed, and the 
different conditions, ceremonial and spiritual, induced by 
the elements operative in Judaic and Patristic baptism. 
The former takes away " bodily defilement," the latter takes 
away "sins of conscience." 

"But w T e can escape this difficulty," exclaims the theorist. 
"When Ambrose and Chrysostom say there are 'many kinds 
of baptisms/ they do not mean what they say; they mean 
that there is but one kind. They speak figuratively of dif- 
ferent effects under one cause, or the diversities of a whole 



BAPTISM FROM THE BED. 171 

are embraced in the use of one of its parts." But the text 
does not speak of a dipping being in "the whole " as a part. 
"Very true; but we escape that difficulty, too, by ' figure.' 
Washing is the requirement, and as dipping is one mode of 
washing, and the greater includes the lesser, a dipping must 
be included in the washing." Certainly, the theory does cut 
quite a figure in its exposition, especially as being received 
on sufferance into the home of washing, like the pleading 
wolf into the home of the lamb, it incontinently devours its 
confiding host. 

After all, we prefer believing that Chrysostom means what 
he says, that baptisms differ, though dippings do not, and 
that Judaic baptism changes the condition of the body by 
removing ceremonial defilement, while Patristic baptism 
was imagined to change the condition of the soul, by re- 
moving "sins of conscience." The baptism of Christ was 
(as taught) " Judaic baptism." 

As to the manner of using the water for this washing, 
there is no intimation, whatever, of any particular mode. 
It is admitted that the word (Ao<W) carries no one mode with 
it, nor do any incidental directions or circumstances point to 
any modal use. 

It is not necessary that the object washed should be in the 
water. This has been proved. And it is in proof, in respect 
to this particular washing, that neither the Septuagint nor 
Chrysostom believed that the body was required to be dip- 
ped in, or put in the water in any way, for the language they 
employ — kuuaezai odart — allows the body to be washed out of 
the water as well as in the water, the requirement being to 
wash witli water. This Judaic baptism of ceremonial puri- 
fication, no more self-evidences the quo modo of its execution 
by dipping, pouring, or sprinkling, than does the Classic 
baptism of intoxication give its own proof as to the mode 
in which the wine was received — at one draught, by fre- 
quent sipping, or by sucking through a straw. 

Clement. — The extract from Clement shows that this was 
one, only, of the "many baptisms" of Moses. It also ex- 
hibits two points irreconcilable with the theory. 



172 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

1. The greater power of Patristic over Judaic baptism, and 
2. The phraseology, " baptized from the conjugal bed." 

As to the first of these points, Clement is in accord with 
other Patrists in attributing greater power to Christian bap- 
tism, over all other baptisms; but if baptism was understood 
by them to mean a dipping, no " power" can be attributed 
to one dipping over any other dipping. If baptism is ex- 
pressive of condition, then there is fitness in saying that a 
Jewish or Christian rite had more or less power to produce 
a given effect. 

In relation to the second point, it is obvious that " dip- 
ping from " defilement, is not such form of language as we 
would expect, while "to purify from," harmonizes with the 
idea. This form of expression we have met with before 
under similar circumstances — " baptizing from a dead body" 
— and we shall meet with it again. Such established usage 
can only be satisfactorily explained by the propriety of its 
form to express the nature of a baptism — purification from 
defilement. 



BAPTISM BY WASHING. 

Ezekiel 16 : 4, 9. 

" And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born . . . thou 
wast not washed in water. Then washed I thee with water." 

Septuagint. 

Kai kv udarc oux eXoufftys .... xdi kXooad <re kv udazc xai "iypiad ae kv 
IXaio). 

Interpretation, 

" Cruenta infantium corpora, statim ut emittuntur ex utero 
lavari solent; ita et generatio spiritualis lavacro indiget salutari. 
. . . Multaque sunt lavacra quse Ethnici in niysteriis suis polli- 
centur; qui omnes lavant: sed non lavant in salutem. Quod 
quidem non solum de hsereticis, sed de Ecclesiasticis intelligi 
potest, qui non plena fide accipiunt baptismum salutare. De- 
quibus dicendum est, quod acciperint aquam, sed non acciperint 



BAPTISM BY WASHING. 173 

Spiritu'm ; sicut et Simon ille Magus, qui pccunia volebat rcdimere 

gratiam Dei, baptizatus quidem in aqua, sed nequaquam bap- 

tizatus est in salutem." 

( Verse 9.) ' Et lavi te aqua . . . . et unxi te oleo.' 

.... "Et lavi te, inquit, aqua baptismi salutaris. . . . de quo 

baptisraate et Isaias loquitur, dicens : Lavabit Dominus sordes 

filiorum et filiarum Sion." — Jerome, v, 127, 131. 

"The bodies of infants, stained with blood, are washed as soon 
as born. So, also, spiritual birth needs the salutary washing. 
The heathen practise many washings in their mysteries; who 
wash all; but they do not wash into salvation. Which indeed 
may be understood not only of heretics, but of those connected 
with the church, who do not receive with full faith the salutary 
baptism. Of whom it may be said, they receive the water, but 
do not receive the spirit; as also, Simon, the Magician, who 
wished to purchase the grace of God with money, was baptized, 
indeed, with water, but by no means, baptized into salvation." 

Versed. "And I washed thee with water .... and I anointed 
thee with oil." 

"And I washed thee," he says, "with the water of salutary 
baptism. . . . Concerning which baptism, Isaiah, also, speaks: 
The Lord will wash the uncleanness of the sons and daughters 
of Zion."— Jerome, v, 127, 131. 

SPECIAL POINTS. 

1. Infant washing. — Not one new-born babe in a million 
is put under the water in washing. But the theory says : 
"Under the water, baptism; not under the water, no bap- 
tism." 

2. Washing is baptism. — No new-born babe was ever washed 
by a simple dipping into or covering with water. Birth im- 
purity is not thus cleansed. Soul impurity is not to be 
washed away by a mere dipping into simple water. Wash- 
ing and baptism are, both, more than a dipping. Washing 
is baptism because it is more than a dipping. Baptism is 
washing because it is more than a dipping. Dipping is 
neither a washing nor a baptism, because it is nothing but 
a dipping. Washing is more than (and may be performed 
without) either sprinkling, or pouring, or dipping. Dr. Fuller 



174 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

(p. 15), says: "A command to wash is a command to wash, 
and nothing else." Doubtless Naaman thought so too. 

3. Salutary washing. — That washing which is more than a 
dipping, yet no dipping, frees the new-born babe from its 
impurities, and brings it into a salutary, healthful condi- 
tion. That washing which the Holy Spirit effects through 
power imparted to the water, frees the soul from its impuri- 
ties and brings it into a salutary condition — one of spiritual 
health and salvation-^-baptizes " into salvation." So Patrists 
thought. 

4. Simple water cannot baptize. — Simon Magus was baptized, 
(dipped Jerome, probably, supposed,) yet was not baptized. 
Just as Ambrose says: "Baptismata sunt gentium, sed non 
sunt baptismata." It may be called a baptism because 
avowedly a religious purification ; but it was no baptism, in 
fact, because no purification of the soul took place, the power 
of the Holy Spirit not being incorporated with the water. 
He received the water; he did not receive the Spirit. No 
change of condition took place. He did not pass out of a 
state of impurity and condemnation, into a state of purity 
and salvation ; therefore no baptism took place. 

5. This washing was with water and not in water. — It is true 
that the Septuagint introduces the preposition with the da- 
tive; but it is hardly necessary to say, that this is done, 
almost times without number, with instrumentality as well 
as locality. That it should be so regarded in this passage 
is shown, 1. By the fact that the preposition is omitted in 
Jerome's version. 2. That the preposition is used in the 
same verse, by the Septuagint with "oil" where inness is 
out of the question, — "I anointed thee with, not in, oil." In 
which case, also, Jerome omits the preposition. 3. In de- 
scribing the use of oil, immediately after, he expresses the 
mode of use, by pouring — old infusione linivit. The use of 
water, in the same baptism, both as instrumental means and 
receiving element, is as impossible as to use wine at the 
same time for baptizing one by making him drunk by drink- 
ing, and for drowning by putting him in it. The theory 
can find neither aid nor comfort in this washing. 



BAPTISM BY WASHING THE HANDS AND FEET. 175 



BAPTISM BY WASHING THE HANDS AND FEET. 

Exodus 40 : 30-33. 
(Exodus 29:4; 30:18-20.) (Numb. 8:5; 19:20.) 

"And he set the laver between the tent of the congregation 
and the altar, and put water there to wash withal. 

"And Closes and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and 
their feet thereat. 

" When they went into the tent of the congregation, and when 
they came near unto the altar they washed; as the Lord com- 
manded Moses. " 

Septuagint. 

Uob]Gov Xooz^pa %aXxovv — ware vfcrsffSai — xai hyelz efc abrov vdajp. 
Kai vtysrat 'Aaptbv xaX ul ulu\ abrob ££" abrob rdq yslpar, xai robs xodac 
Uaxi. (Ex. 30 : 18, 19.) 

.... xai Xobaetq abrobq uoart. (Ex. 40 : 12.) 

Interpretation. 

Upwrov 6 apyispsbq Xouerat, eira 6o;ua .... kok; yb\p ivsywpsi rwv 
d)./.a» u-zpzvyzG&ai ; rdv df udaroq ooiza> xexaOapur/xivov ; xa\ ou[±fioXov 
k'y.e'.Tu rob ^aitTifffiaroq^ lourrjp evdov dmoxeifievoq Trjq ffxyvqq, 

"The high priest first washes, then sacrifices ; for Aaron was 
first washed, then became high priest. For how could be be 
permitted to pray for others who was not first cleansed by 
water ? And the laver placed within the tent was a symbol of 
baptism." — Cyril of Jerusalem, 433. 

" Interanea sane cum pedibns aqua dilni jubet sermo prsecepti, 
sacramentum baptismi sub figurali prsedieatione denuntians. 

"Igitur sacrificium, pro quo haec omnia sacrificia in typo et 
figura praccesserant, unum et perfectum, immolatus est Christus." 

" The word of the precept, truly, with the feet, orders the 
washing with internal water, announcing, figuratively, the sac- 
rament of baptism. 

"Therefore Christ was sacrificed, the one perfect sacrifice, for 
which all these sacrifices in type and figure went before." — Ori- 
gen, ii, 410, 442. 



176 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

y Ayv£ta de £<tti ypovelv oma' xai drj xai r] elxcbv rod (jaTzriapazoq e*rj du 
xai yj ex Miooffiwq 7:apadsSo/jJv7) rolq izoir^raiq wdi TCivq. 

l H <5' bbpivapivf] xaQapa ypol I'/iara iyouaa, 
t II Uevelo-fj in) irp> iuyvju epyezat. 

TrjXipayoq de, 

Xe'tpaq vupdpevoq xoXirjq aXbq, k'oyer 'AQrjvrj. 

*EGoq tooto 'loudatwv, tbq xai to 7CoXXdx:q in) xoi'rrj (ja-Ti'^effGat. 
Eo yovv xdxetvo efprjrar 

v Ia6t p.i) XooTpip, aXXa vo<p xaSapoq. 

Clem. Alex., i, 1352. 

" Purity is to think purely. An image of this baptism was 
communicated to the poets, from Moses, thus — 

' Having washed, and being clothed with clean vestments, 
Penelope comes to prayer.' 

1 But Telemachus, 

Having washed his hands of the hoary sea, prays to Minerva.' 

" This is a custom of the Jews to baptize often upon the 
couch. Therefore, it is well said, 

< Be pure, not by washing, but by thinking.' " 

Clemens Alex., i, 1352. 

BAPTISM OF THE WHOLE BODY BY WASHING A PART. 

Washing. — Dr. Carson insists that if these washings are 
called baptisms, they must have been "immersions." At 
the same time he says, " That the word (Xouid) does not neces- 
sarily express mode, I readily admit. This must be deter- 
mined by circumstances. All I contend for from this word 
is, that the object to which it is applied is covered with the 
water. The application of this word to baptism shows that 
the rite was a bathing of the whole body; and as immersion 
is the usual way of bathing, baptism must have been an 
immersion." (p. 486.) Dr. C. here distinguishes between 
" bathing" and "immersion," yet insists that in either case, 
equally, the object bathed or immersed shall be "covered 
with the water." There is such a careless and groundless 
mixing up of important words, having essentially diverse 



WASHING THE HANDS BAPTIZES THE BODY. 177 

meanings, by this writer, that one cannot tell what he means. 
Does he mean that an object not in water, but rubbed by a 
wetted hand or cloth, is "bathed," "covered with water?" 
He speaks of the wounded thigh of Adonis being bathed, 
covered with water. If he was not "immersed," which is 
not said, how else could his wounded thigh have been 
" bathed" but by rubbing with the hand? So, unquestion- 
ably, the stripes of Paul and Silas were washed — bathed. 
But if this is the "covering with water" which Dr. C. con- 
tends for, what becomes of his conclusion of immersion-dip- 
ping when this Greek word is used ? . 

The fullest proof has been adduced to show that Xouw, lavo, 
wash, bathe, do not require their objects to be in the water. 
And as to the mode of applying the water, Carson (p. 493) 
admits — "the water might be applied by sprinkling, or by 
pouring, or in any way." Tertullian speaks of one as ex- 
posed "lavacro Jovis," to "the washing of Jupiter," effected 
" imbribus et pluviis," by " showers and rains." Would this 
meet the idea of "bathing and covering with water?" A 
line of poetry reads, " The rose had been washed, just washed 
in a shower ;" is this washing, bathing, covering, by sprink- 
ling? If this is his meaning, I do not know who will find 
much fault, unless it be the friends of the theory. And with 
this meaning, what becomes of tlie logic which infers these 
washings into immersions? And why is not Calvin (Harm, 
of Pent, ii, 210) justified, not merely by the merits of the 
case, but by Carson himself, in saying, — " Moses, before he 
consecrates the priests, washes them by the sprinkling of 
water?" Carson says, (p. 471,) "A purification performed 
by pouring or sprinkling a few drops of water, would not be 
a loutron." This statement overlooked the truth that religi- 
ous purification does not depend for its extent on the extent 
of the application of the purifying element. The purifica- 
tion effected may embrace the entire person, although but a 
few drops of the purifying element may fall on the body. It 
is to this complete purification that the term Xuut(>6», washing, 
is applied. 

Thus Chrysostom speaks of martyrs "washed (iouovraC) by 

12 



178 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

their own blood." And Origen speaks of being "washed 
(loti) by our own blood." Blood, of itself, has no "wash- 
ing" quality; it denies. It is not used, here, for washing 
physically any part. Sacrificial blood cleanses the whole of 
that to which it is applied, irrespective of the extent of its 
application. This was martyr blood, and it washed the whole 
man — body and soul — though applied but in sprinkled drops. 
It is to this universal cleansing, this condition of purity, to 
which Xootpdv is applied, and applied without any possibility 
of just questioning. And Calvin is right in saying, (ii, p. 
186,) " The washing of the hands and feet denoted that all 
parts of the body were infected with uncleanness; for since 
Scripture often uses the word ' hands' for the actions of life, 
and compares the whole course of life to a way or journey, 
it is very suitable to say, by synecdoche, that all impurity is 
purged away by the washing of the hands and feet." 

Dr. Carson's plea for immersions because of washings, 
(baptisms,) is all in the air. 

The brazen laver. — This laver, Cyril tells us, was "the sym- 
bol of baptism." It was not the symbol of clipping. Aaron 
and his sons did not wash in this vessel. Would not a com- 
mand for several persons to wash their hands and feet in the 
same vessel, be, at any time, incredible? "Would it not be 
•pre-eminently incredible, that after one had washed his feet 
in a vessel of water, another should be required to wash his 
hands in the same vessel for a religious purification? But we 
are not left to reject, by inference, this singular conception; 
we are most distinctly told that the water was to be taken 
out of the laver — ££ duroo — 8dau — "wash with water out of it." 
But Dr. Carson would immerse the priests in the brazen sea, 
(p. 444,) — " Such things as they offered for burnt offering, 
they washed in them; but the sea was for the priests to wash in. 
Are not these immersions? Are not these different immer- 
sions even in the temple?" That is to say, he would make 
the priests climb up over these " twelve oxen," and then climb 
up five cubits higher, and plunge into twenty thousand gal- 
lons of water to wash ! How many times a day this was 
done; or, how many this water purified before it became 



WASHING THE HANDS BAPTIZES THE BODY. 179 

impure, and had to be drawn off, and supplied with twenty 
thousand gallons of fresh water, we are not told. 

The theory needs a courageous advocate, and it has one 
in Dr. Carson. But " the sea" will not serve for immersion. 

The Hebrew uses two words (neither of modal act) to ex- 
press these laver and sea washings. The Septuagint em- 
ploys three words — ttAww, TtspulbZo), vi-rw — the last (applied to 
hand and feet washings) denoting the washing of the priests. 
Thus, the highest testimony, that of Jews who had full 
knowledge of the facts, denies an immersion in the " sea." 

Baptism in Figure. — When Cyril speaks of the laver, at 
which the hands and feet were washed, as " a symbol of 
baptism;" and when Origen speaks of feet-washing as " bap- 
tism in figure ;" and when Clement speaks of the washing 
of hands as an "image of baptism," they all mean to declare 
that these washings were baptisms, without any regard to 
the modal action by which the washing was effected. There 
is no hint as to the manner of the washing. It is said, 
(by the use of fta with the genitive, and by the use of odan 
without a preposition,) that the water was used as a means to 
effect the baptism, and not as an element to receive an ob- 
ject put into it. The baptism effected was one in fact, and 
not of mere imagination. It was not the absurdity of a 
physical baptism of a hand or a foot. How would such a 
baptism fit the priest for his duties? It is not his hands or 
his feet that he needs to be made pure, but his entire per- 
son. And this is accomplished by applying water, merely, 
to the hands and feet. This baptizes the whole person; 
brings the whole man into a condition of ceremonial purity, 
which is the baptism. This change of condition, from im- 
purity into purity, is a fact, as truly as is the change of con- 
dition in a mass of lead passing from the atmosphere into 
the depths of the sea. This change, in the ceremonial con- 
dition of the whole man, by the local application of water, 
is called symbol of, figure of, image of, baptism, because it 
is a baptism which resembles some other baptism, and is in- 
tended so to resemble it. 

As these symbols, figures, images, are connected with a 



180 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

great variety of modes in the use of the agency in the bap- 
tism — water, blood, ashes, &c. — it is important to establish 
the fact that, under all these forms, they are not merely 
called, for some known or unknown reason, but truly are 
bona fide baptisms. For this purpose I call attention to the 
use of the same terms, "type and figure," in the extract 
from Origen, in reference to sacrifices which preceded "the 
one and perfect sacrifice." Although these sacrifices differed 
greatly among themselves, and still more from the " perfect 
sacrifice," still, they agreed generically among themselves, 
and in their resemblance to " the one sacrifice," in this, 
namely: that, in every case, there was a substitutionary 
victim. With great variety in the victims, and in the modal 
arrangements, they were all true sacrifices, "typifying and 
figuring" one which was like, and infinitely unlike. These 
baptisms, amid diversity of object and modal execution, 
were as real baptisms as these sacrifices were real. As Ori- 
gen says, there were many sacrifices, yet only " one sacri- 
fice." So Ambrose says : "Multa sunt genera baptismatum 
sed unum baptisma." Let no one suppose that the terms 
"symbol, figure, image," detract, in any wise, from the sub- 
stantive character of these baptisms. 

Jewish Custom. — Clement had been engaged in a discussion 
designed to enforce the great superiority of mental purity — 
right thinking — over ceremonial purity, water-washing. This 
leads him to speak of baptism, water-washing, as practised 
by Jew and Gentile. He supposes that the heathen poets 
may have received "the image of baptism" from Moses. 
Among the baptisms enjoined by Moses, he appears to have 
had especially in mind the washing of hands, as he quotes 
a case of this kind as practised by Telemachus; and also 
refers to the Jewish custom of washing hands at meals, 
"upon the couch." And in view of this widespread water- 
washing, and its ceremonial purity, presses, again, the great 
superiority of a pure mind over a ceremonial washing. To 
fasten this truth in the mind, is his single and earnest pur- 
pose. 

Inasmuch as dipping into water, or covering over with 



WASHING THE HANDS BAPTIZES THE BODY. 181 

water — one reclining upon a dining-couch — would be both 
untimely and embarrassing, Baptist writers have sought to 
introduce quite another scene. Thus Dr. Carson (p. 492) 
says: "The passage refers to the nightly pollutions, after 
which bathing was prescribed by the law of Moses. They 
were immersed on accout of the bed ; that is, pollutions con- 
tracted there." (Levit. 15 : 16-48.) 

This is only another of those extravagances of interpreta- 
tion, constantly exhibited in the attempt to sustain a ground- 
less theory, by cutting off and stretching out the facts of 
usage. 

The interpretation is extravagant, 1. Because there is not 
a single point of contact between it and the context. There 
is neither statement of, nor hint at, sexual intercourse, in 
the remarks of Clement. Such conception cannot be made 
to mingle with the train of thought, any more than oil with 
water. It is an alien thing. 2. It is ridiculously absurd to 
suppose that "the poets" would learn "the image of bap- 
tism " from post-concubital washings ! 3. It is a gross im- 
peachment of Clement, to suppose that he would place, in 
juxtaposition, the purifications for prayer by Penelope and 
Telemachus, with sexual uncleanness. 4. It is an extrava- 
gance, most extravagant, to suppose that, out of the multi- 
plied washings of the Jews, Clement would select a washing 
of this class, to hold it up before the world as illustrative of 
Jewish " custom." 

What is the ground on which this interpretation is based? 

1. The assumption that w>&j must mean a sleeping couch. 

2. The assumption that reference is made to Leviticus 15 : 
16-18, and its remarkable washing. 3. The assumption 
that this washing was by "immersion." 4. The assumption 
that &rt has an unusual meaning. JSTot one of these assump- 
tions has been proved, or can be proved. As to the first, it 
is disproved by President Beecher, most conclusively: — 
"Xenophon, in his Memorabilia, authorizes the usage (din- 
ner-couch). Speaking of the marks of honor due from the 
younger to the elder, he mentions ' rising up in their pres- 
ence, honoring them with a soft couch — xoh$ y.akaxr t — and 



182 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

giving them the precedence in speech.' This interpretation 
is sustained by Struzius, in his Lexicon Xenophonteum, who 
describes it as 'lectus quietis et convivii,' a couch of repose 
and feasting. Morell, in his Lexicon Prosodaicum, gives 
xXfoy and xornj as synonyms." 

The comment of Hervetus, a translator of Clement, on 
this passage, is: " The Jews washed themselves, not only at 
sacrifices, but also at feasts, and this is the reason why Clem- 
ent says that they were purified or washed upon a couch, 
that is, a dining-couch or triclinium. To this Mark refers, 
ch. vii, and Matt., ch. xv. Tertullian also refers to it when 
he says, Judseus Israel quotidie lavat." 

The second assumption is sufficiently refuted when con- 
fronted with the passage. We may add, however, additional 
disproof, taken from Clement himself. He does refer to the 
washing in Levit. 15, in i, 1184, but in very different terms: 
&7td Tr,q xard ao^oyiav xotr^q — fianriZeffku. ISTow, can any one, when 

Clement has described this baptism in such unmistakable 
terms, claim a right to confound with it a baptism described 
in terms so diverse, and belonging to such diverse circum- 
stances? The diversity of these passages does not consist 
merely, or mainly, in the presence of ffuZuyiav, in the one case, 
and in its absence in the other, but in the presence of a-b in 
the first passage, and the use of hzi in the latter. The use 
of fad, with the noun indicating the source of defilement, 
from which cleansing has been effected, is established usage; 
thus, we have " baptized from (Axd) a dead body," " from 
(aTro) the market," "from (and) an evil conscience." The use 
of &rt, under such circumstances, is unheard of. If, then, 
au^uylav might be omitted, ok6 would, in its absence, be most 
imperatively required to be retained, in a reference to the 
baptism contemplated. Its absence, alone, is disproof of 
the assumed reference. 

The third assumption has been met with so frequently, 
heretofore, and is in such constant demand as a staff on 
which the theory may lean, that no, present, formal dis- 
proof is needed. 

The fourth assumption is dismissed by the truth, that no 



WASHING THE HANDS BAPTIZES THE BODY. 183 

unusual meaning can take the place of a usual meaning, 
when that meaning fully meets the exigencies of the case. 
The usual meaning meets all the demands of the present 
passage, most perfectly. It is in proof, that the washing of 
hands constituted a baptism of the entire person. It is in 
proof, that the washing of hands did take place, for the pu- 
rification of the person, at meals. It is, therefore, in proof, 
that baptisms might take place, as Clement affirms, " upon 
the couch." And, this being in proof, the theory is again 
disproved, for hsm&-dippi?ig, as a door of retreat, is both 
locked and bolted. The hands were no more defiled than 
any other part of the body, and if the purifying influence of 
the water extended no farther than its physical application, 
then the man, hands excepted, remained in all his impurity. 
But the man was purified, and consequently the purifying 
influence of the water extended beyond its application. 
Wine, drank, does not baptize — make drunk — nierety the 
mouth, and throat, and stomach, which the liquid touches, 
but the whole man, from head to foot. So, purifying water 
does not merely baptize — make pure — the hands and the 
feet, with which it comes into contact, but the entire person, 
reached through these members of the body. When we 
meet with a heathen or a Jew, who believes that that part 
only of the body is baptized to which the water or the ashes 
is applied, we will listen to a hand-baptism as being some- 
thing else than a baptism of the entire person. Hand-wash- 
ing, " upon the couch," however effected, was no dipping of 
the person into water, but it was a baptism of the entire man. 
There is strong reason to believe that Clement, instead of 
referring to Leviticus 15, had his eye on Mark 7 : 2, 3. In 
additiou to general considerations, very strong special evi- 
dence for this may be found in the use of TtoUdxcq. It is well 
known that the use of ^to?, in Mark, has been a cause of 
embarrassment to translators. The Vulgate, Luther, and 
the English Bible, translate "frequently " "many times," 
" often," and it is quite probable that Clement obtained his 
"frequently" from the same source. Certainly the word 
has thus a reason for its use, while, on the Baptist hypothe- 



184 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

sis, it must be confessed that it is a very remarkable ad- 
dendum. 

Alex. D. Le JSTourry (Dissert, ii, in Clementem) makes 
the following remark on the passage under consideration: 
"Nostri porro sacri baptismatis imaginem non solum apud 
Judseos, sed etiam Gentiles fuisse Clemens noster ostendit. 
Et apud Gentiles quidem in eo, quod de Penelope et Tele- 
macho cecinit Homerus Odyss. A' et J'. Apud Judseos 
autem, quia mos eorum erat, ut ssepe in lecto tingerentur, Sed 
scite Clemens monet hsec plane imperfecta fuisse baptismata 
quandoquidem non lavacro, sed animo mundi purique esse 
debemus." 

On this passage we may ask: 1. Can the irrationality of 
theory go beyond the making washing post concubitum, the 
image "nostri sacri baptismatis?" 2. When the theory insists 
that tingo, used with baptism, proves a dipping, how does it 
manage to effect a dipping " in lecto?" 

Clement, a native of Athens, knew somewhat of Greek, 
but clearly he knew nothing of the dipping theory. 



BAPTISM BY SPKINKLING. 
Leviticus 14 : 4-7. 

"Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be 
cleansed, two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, 
and hyssop: 

" And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed 
in an earthen vessel over running water. 

" As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, 
and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip 'them and the living 
bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running 
water : 

"And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from 
the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and 
shall let the living bird loose in the field." 

Septuagint. 

Kai Tzeotofiavet in) rbv xa&apiaHvra oltzo r^q Xl~paq ir.rdxiq xal xa.6apb<z 



BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING. 185 

Interpretation. 

. . . . " Et intingens passerem vivum in aquas, in quibus san- 
guineni immolati passeris decurrere fecerat, cum ligno cedrino, 
lana coccinea, et hyssopo aspergeret septies leprosum, et tunc 
rite mundaretur. . . . Per lignum vero cedrinum Pater, per 
hyssopum Filius ; per lanam autem coccineam, quae fulgorem 
ignis habet, Spiritus sanctus designatur. lis tribus, qui rite 
mundari volebat, aspergebatur; quia nullus per aquam baptis- 
matis a lepra peccatorum mundari potest, nisi sub invocatione 
Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. . . . .Nosque a peccatis nostris, 
qui per leprosum designamur, per eorum invocationem, et per 
aquam baptismatis abluit." 

"The Lord also commanded Moses that if any leprous person 
would be cleansed, he should come to the priest and offer two 
sparrows to the priest. Of which he killing one should make 
its blood flow into living water, and dipping the living sparrow 
into the water in which he had made the blood of the slain 
sparrow to flow, with cedar wood, scarlet wool and hyssop, he 
should sprinkle seven times the leprous person, and then he 
would be properly cleansed. . . . 

"But by the cedar wood the Father, by the hyssop the Son, 
but by the scarlet wool, which has the brightness of fire, the 
Holy Spirit is designated. Whoever wished to be cleansed in 
proper form was sprinkled by these three; because no one can 
be cleansed from the leprosy of sin by the water of baptism, ex- 
cept under the invocation of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost. . . . And he cleanses us, who are designated 
by the leper, by their invocation and by the water of baptism/' 
— Ambrose, iv, 829. 



BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING. 

Ambrose, here, draws out in minute detail the points of 
resemblance between the figure baptism and the figured 
baptism. 

The resemblances are 1. The leper and the sinner. 2. 
Leprosy and sin. 3. The mingled water and blood, and the 
water of baptism. 4. The cedar wood, the hyssop, and the 
scarlet wool, designating the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 



186 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

5. The removal of the leprosy and the purification of the 
soul from sin. 

Where these elements were present, the cleansing, the 
baptism, was duly performed. But the theory cries out, 
"Stop, where is the dipping?" Alas, here as everywhere 
else, it is lacking. The fact is that all through the Patristic 
interpretations of Jewish baptisms, it is written in characters 
so plain, that " a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err 
therein," that a dipping or a covering with water never 
enters into their thoughts as a requisite for baptism. 

And this, not because they did not know that Pa-~iXu> had 
power to effect a physical intusposition unlimited by form 
of act, or time of duration, thus essentially changing the 
condition of its object; but because they knew this well, and 
because they knew more, namely, that this word was able 
to throw aside this limited application to a condition of 
physical investment, and to advance into a broader and nobler 
field, indicative of thorough change of condition under any 
competent influence. This places the Patrists in full accord 
with the Classics, and expounds with the most entire facility, 
all their language. These Jewish baptisms have nothing to 
do with physical investments. They belong to baptisms 
whose change of condition is due to influences which do not 
invest externally, but pervade internally. Hence this bap- 
tism was by sprinkling, and it operated as an agency con- 
trolling the condition of the sprinkled object; as Ambrose 
says, " by (per) the water of baptism." Ambrose believed 
in baptism by sprinkling, though not in dipping by sprinkling. 



BAPTISM BY WASHING AND SPKINKLING. 
Psalm 51 : 2, 7. 

" Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from 
my sin. 

« Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean : wash me, and 
I shall be whiter than snow." 



BAPTISM BY WASHING AND SPRINKLING. 187 

Septuagint. 

*EicticXewv -Xuvov fie d~o zr t g dvofiiaq poo, xal drco z^c dpapztaz poo 
xaMp'.trov fie. 

'/Wrteec pe oaam-u) xal xa6api<j67J<To/iai } nXoveic pe xal Oickp ytova Xeoxdv 
tojffofiat. (Ps. 50 : 4, 9.) 

Interpretation. 

"Kenovamur enim per lavacri regenerationem ; renovamur 
per Spiritus sancti effusionem ; renovamur etiam per resurrec- 
tionem. . . . Quomodo renovemur, audi : Asperges me hyssopo, 
et mundabor. (Ps. 50 : 9.) . . . Eecte renovatur qui de tenebris 
peccatorum in lucem virtutum mutatur et gratiam. — Ambrose, i, 
827. 

" Non tarn ssepius quam plenius lavari petit, ut conceptam 
Bordem possit eluere. Noverat secundum legem pleraque mun- 
daodi esse subsidia, sed nullum plenum et perfectum. Ad illud 
ergo perfectum tota intentione festinat, quo justitia omnis im- 
pletur, quod est baptismatis sacramentum, sicut ipse docet Dom- 
inus Jesus (Matt. 3 : 15). i, 867. 

" Qui enim baptizatur, et secundum Legem et secundum Evan- 
gelium videtur esse mundatus; secundum legem, quia hyssopi 
fasciculo Moyses aspergebat saoguinem agni : secundum Evan- 
gelium, quia Christi erant Candida vestimenta sicut nix, cum 
resurrectionis susd gloriam in Evangelio demonstraret. Super 
nivem ergo dealbitur cui culpa dimittitur. (iii, 399.) 

" Per hyssopi fasciculum aspergebatur agni sanguine qui mun- 
dari volebat typico baptismate." — Ambrose, i, 875. 

— did zooq piXXovzaq vggcukcd pavz'^eabai, xa\ xaQapt^ecrQat VGamKip rip 
voTjza) rfj duvdfiei zoo xard zo ndSoq baadiizo) xaX xaXdpw izoziaUvzoq. — Cyril, 
425.' 

BaitTiaQ&fiev o3v, ha vucrjaaiftev' pszdnywpev xaQapalcov odazwv, uaaw-oo 
(5u7ZTixoj~£pujv, atpazoq vofitxou xaGapwziptuv, anodoo SapaXsivq lepwzepwv 
(lavTtZoiHrqq Tobq xexotviofiivoug, xa\ izpdaxcupov tyouff-qq aibfiaroq x&Oapaiv, 
od 7ravr£/.^ z7,z dpapztaq avaipeoiv. — Gregory Nazianzen, 372. 

"We are renewed by the regeneration of washing; we are 
renewed by the effusion of the Holy Spirit; we are renewed, 
also, by the resurrection. How we must be renewed, hear: 
'Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.' 



188 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

He is rightly renewed who is changed from the darkness of sin 
into the light of virtue and grace." — Ambrose, i, 827. 

" He does not desire so much to be washed frequently as thor- 
oughly, that contracted defilement may be washed away. He 
knew that, according to the law, there were many means of 
cleansing, but none full and perfect. To that perfect one, there- 
fore, he hastens with full purpose, by which all righteousness 
may be fulfilled, which is the sacrament of baptism, as the Lord 
Jesus himself testifies (Matt. 3 : 15)." i, 867. 

" He who wished to be cleansed by typical baptism, was 
sprinkled with the blood of the lamb by a bunch of hyssop/' 
i, 875. 

" He who is baptized, whether in conformity with the Law 
or in conformity with the Gospel, is cleansed ; in conformity 
with the Law, because Moses sprinkled the blood of the lamb 
with a bunch of hyssop." .... iii, 399. 

"Kejoice, O heavens, and be glad, O earth, because of those 
who are about to be sprinkled with hyssop, and to be purified 
by the spiritual hyssop, through the power of him who drank, 
in his suffering, from the hyssop and the reed." — Cyril, 425. 

" Therefore let us be baptized, that we may overcome ; let us 
partake of the purifying waters, more purging than hyssop, 
more purifying than the blood of the Law, more sanctifying 
than the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, and having, 
for the time, power for the purification of the body, but not for 
the complete removal of sin." — Gregory Nazianzen, 372. 

Sprinkling Water, Blood, or Ashes, Effects a Baptism, 

POINTS. 

1. Washing, sprinkling ; a means toward Baptism. — Ambrose 
teaches, in the first extract, that we are renewed by the re- 
generative power of washing; that the mode of the washing 
effecting this renewal, is by " sprinkling with hyssop;" and, 
farther, that what is meant by "renewal" is a change of 
condition, passing out of a state of moral darkness into a 
state of moral light. This new condition, effected by sprink- 
ling-washing, is baptism. 

Is this the doctrine (not theological but philological) of 
the theory ? Is it not the identical philological conclusion 



BAPTISM BY WASHING AND SPRINKLING. 189 

to which we were brought by the Classics, viz., a thorough 
change of condition, effected by an influence, is a baptism? 

2. Baptism under the Law not of fall power. — Ambrose had 
before told us that there were "many baptisms;" he now 
tells us that "not one of these was perfect." Pie does not 
mean to deny that any or all were perfect baptisms, con- 
sidered in themselves, but that they were relatively imper- 
fect; the power effecting the baptism, — the changed con- 
dition, was not adequate to meet all the necessities of men. 
In like manner John's baptism was "imperfect," and for 
the same reason. The theorists will not deny that John's 
baptism was perfect as a baptism considered in itself; nor 
can they deny that the Patrists regarded John's baptism as 
"imperfect" as respects its power to change the condition 
of those receiving it. The " imperfection " of legal baptisms 
by sprinkling, considered as carrying with them "the fulfil- 
ment of all righteousness," does not affect their being true 
and perfect baptisms in themselves. This idea of perfectness 
of power in a baptism, is proof that form of act had nothing 
to do with it; fulness of result was the issue in contempla- 
tion. 

3. Legal sprinklings Baptize. — In the third extract he de- 
clares, as plainly as it can be expressed in language, that 
baptism under the Law and baptism under the Gospel, are 
on a perfect equality as baptisms ; that they are, also, on an 
equality as to the effecting a change of condition from im- 
purity to purity ; but as to the measure of that change they 
differed. He, also, tells us, in terms so explicit as to admit 
of no addition, that the mode of baptism " according to the 
Law" was by sprinkling, — "Moses sprinkled the blood of the 
Lamb upon him who was baptized according to the law." 

4. Type Baptism. — In the last extract this truth is reaf- 
firmed with a vividness and force which writes as with a 
pen of iron in the rock forever, that sprinkling the blood of the 
Lamb baptizes, — brings the impure out of their condition of 
impurity into a condition of purity. And this baptism is a 
"type" of that one, full, and perfect baptism by the Lamb 
of God, according to the Gospel. 



190 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

Against this identification of sprinkling and baptism Dr. 
Carson lifts up a cry of indignation and rebuke. And well 
he may; for if Ambrose is right Carson is wrong, all wrong, 
and the theory, — " dip and nothing but dip through all Greek 
literature," as also its amendment, " at least a complete cov- 
ering," — perishes without hope. 

On this point Carson thus speaks (p. 369) : " To what pur- 
pose is it to refer us to the sprinkling of Aaron and his sons 
with blood, with other sprinklings? These were divers puri- 
fications, but they were not divers baptisms. Yet, after enu- 
merating these sprinklings, he gravely tells us: 'Now these 
are the divers baptisms of which the apostle speaks.' Who 
told him this? The passage does not say so; we have not 
even the authority of a dream. Nothing but assumption, 
assumption, assumption. Why does he not identify these 
sprinklings with the baptisms? This has never been effect- 
ed; this cannot be effected. . . . There is here nothing that 
looks like an identification of the sprinklings under the law, 
with the baptisms under the law." Then let us try again : 
" ' Qui enim baptizatur, . . secundum Legem . . Moyses asper- 
gebat,' — For he who is baptized according to the law, Moses 
sprinkled." Does this look more like identification? "As- 
pergebatur agni sanguine qui mundari volebat typico baptis- 
mate, — He was sprinkled with the blood of the lamb who 
wished to be cleansed with typical baptism." Is this any more 
satisfactory ? We hand over the charge of triple assumption 
to its proper ownership, the theory. Sunshine does not more 
surely reveal shadow as attendant upon substance, than does 
history show assumption to wait on the theory. Now, 
that Ambrose calls the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb 
a baptism, human wit can neither evade nor deny; but 
troubled theorists may seek to escape on the ground that it 
is only a typical baptism. 

To this we answer : 1. These sprinklings are called bap- 
tisms scores of times, without any limiting adjunct. 2. They 
are here called baptisms, regarded in their own nature, and 
typical baptisms, because they have such a nature as to re- 
semble some other baptism to which reference is made. 



BAPTISM BY WASniNG AND SPRINKLING. 191 

3. "Whatever may have been the conception of Ambrose as 
to the antitype baptism, lie mast have seen that conception 
shadowed forth in the type baptism. 4. If Ambrose believed 
that a dipping or a covering was the alpha and the omega 
of a baptism, as the theorists believe, and as they affirm that 
Ambrose believed, then a dipping or a covering must have 
been seen by this Patrist in whatever he called a "typical 
baptism." That this is true, and is felt to be an absolute ne- 
cessity under the theory, by its friends, a glance at facts will 
abundantly prove. 1. In the battle of the Frogs and the 
Mice, Gale, who had assumed the identity of pditrut and 
PamiZa), (the one in a short coat, the other in a long coat,) 
and had remorselessly shut up both to a clipping, felt bound 
by his theory to effect, against the outcry of common sense, 
the dipping of a lake into the blood of a frog. Carson hav- 
ing assumed that panrtCa means " dip, and nothing but dip," 
feels bound, against staring fact, to transmute the flowing 
of the tide into a dipping of the coast into the sea. Dr. Ful- 
ler, having assumed that it means at least "a complete 
covering," felt compelled, even while gazing upon the pour- 
ing water and the uncovered altar, to declare, though it is not 
covered, yet it means that it is covered. The whole com- 
pany of theorists feel bound to uncover the shame of their 
assumption, by declaring that the Apostles were dipped in — 
or at least covered by — the wind, at Pentecost. This class 
of facts shows how dire is the necessity, under the theory, 
to find a dipping or a covering wherever the word baptism 
is used. 2. Another class of facts reveals the same truth. 
"Whenever the Classics show us a baptized drunken man, or 
a baptized sick man, or a baptized studious man, or a bap- 
tized business man, or a baptized bewildered man, or a 
baptized sleeping man, the theorist feels bound, and does, 
pitilessly, put them all under the water. 3. The same de- 
velopment is exhibited under another class of facts. Noah 
is regarded as having received a typical baptism. And the 
theorists feel themselves bound to show "a dipping, or at 
least a complete covering." Consequently we have learned 
men exposing the nakedness of their wisdom to the pity or 



192 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

the derision, as the case may be, of every passer by, by 
talking about Noah buried in the waters, and emerging 
from his grave on Ararat. Again; it is believed that Israel 
received a typical baptism at the Bed Sea. And, at once, 
with all alacrity, as an obligation which admits of neither 
controversy nor escape, they set about the discovery of " a 
dipping, or at least a complete covering." With what suc- 
cess this effort is made, we will soon consider in detail. It 
is sufficient now to point out the fact that a typical baptism 
is recognized as embodying the sine qua non feature of the 
theory. 4. Once more. What is that baptism which is now 
practised by the theorists, according to their claim, but a 
typical baptism, throwing backward its resemblance shadow, 
as the Flood and the Eed Sea threw theirs forward? If 
anything can be settled under the theory, it is, that every 
baptism must have within itself "a dipping, or at least a 
complete covering;" and especially is this true of every 
typical baptism. Now, Ambrose furnishes us with a " typi- 
cal baptism," and tells us most explicitly how it was effected, 
namely, by " the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb." Will 
some friends of the theory do us the favor to hunt up " a dip- 
ping, or at least a complete covering," in this baptism ? If 
it is there, it can be pointed out, and then we will give up 
our argument. If it is not there, then either Ambrose did 
not know what constituted a baptism, or the friends of the 
theory do not. But they admit that Ambrose did well know 
all that entered into the nature of a baptism, therefore the 

theory, &c. . But, apart from this short-hand reasoning, 

let us look back from the standpoint to which we are brought, 
along the line of the theory, to note the make-up of the dip- 
pings and coverings for their baptisms. And, in doing so, 
we are struck with the fact, that the dipping, got out of the 
frog's blood, by Gale, is laughed at by Carson; while the 
dipping which Carson gets out of the rising tide, by the 
invocation of catachresis, Fuller, considerately, rejects with 
the unuttered remark, "the less said about such a dipping 
the better;" Fuller, himself, warned by the Scylla which 
had ruined one of his friends, and alarmed by the Chary bdis 



BAPTISM BY WASHING AND SPRINKLING. 193 

which had destroyed another, abandons the dipping, and 
patronizes "at least a complete covering;" and, after quite 
reluctantly ascending Carmel to witness the baptism there, 
declares, as he looks upon the poured-out water, that "if 
the altar is not covered, it ought to be, for the sake of a very 
dear theory, and, in fact, is, by a most appropriate flood of 
rhetoric." I need but glance at the violence done to sound 
reason by the endless clippings of individuals, and of com- 
munities, of cities and nations, as shown in the misinterpre- 
tations of Classic baptisms. ]STor need I dwell upon the feats 
of imagination, by which E"oah is dipped into the flood, Israel 
into the Red Sea, and the Apostles into the wind. The the- 
orist who can accept and intellectually digest trifles like these, 
may smile at the tenpenny nails and flint stones which enter 
into the commissariat of the Bird of the Desert. 

We choose to cast in our lot with Ambrose as the faithful 
expositor of Classic baptism, which repudiates the presence 
of a dipping or a covering in baptisms of influence, while 
declaring, that the changed condition effected by the sprink- 
ling of the sacrificial lamb is a baptism typical of another 
condition, more full and more perfect. 

CYRIL. 

In addressing candidates for baptism, Cyril calls upon the 
heavens to rejoice, and the earth to be glad, " because of 
those who are about to be sprinkled with hyssop, and to be 
purified with the spiritual hyssop, by the power of Him who 
drank from the hyssop and the reed." He, thus, brings to- 
gether the type baptism and the antitype baptism. I do not 
adduce this fact to prove that Cyril baptized by sprinkling 
(undoubtedly he oftentimes did so), but to show, 1. That it 
never entered into his mind to question that baptism might 
be effected by sprinkling with hyssop. 2. That he had no 
hesitation, however he may, usually, have administered the 
rite of baptism, to speak of it by the same terms which de- 
scribed the typical baptism; but inasmuch as the typical 
baptism by hyssop was never administered otherwise than 

13 



194 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

by "sprinkling," while the Patristic baptism was usually ad- 
ministered in a different form, it follows, inevitably, that 
Cyril did not regard the mode of administering baptism as 
involved in the type or in the nature of a baptism. In other 
words, Cyril believed that baptism was a change of condition, 
effected by any competent influence, and that it never in- 
volved the question as to mode of accomplishment; conse- 
quently he does not hesitate to bring baptism, by sprinkling, 
face to face with baptism administered in any other mode, 
and even to call it by the modal word (" sprinkle ") by which 
the type baptism was accomplished. 3. That Cyril believed 
that both the blood used by Moses in sprinkling, and the 
water used by himself after another fashion, were used as 
means, having a power of influence to effect baptisms inde- 
pendently of their character as fluids. Thus he says (429): 
" Do not regard this washing (ra> Xourpw) as by simple water, 
but by the spiritual grace given with the water . . . — by 
invocation it acquires the power of holiness — (SOvafitv ayiorr^roc, 
btuTarai)." This truth, overlooked by its friends, takes the 
ground from underneath the feet of the theory, and it sinks 
out of sight. Cyril adds : " As man is twofold, purification 
is twofold; that which is spiritual by the spiritual, that which 
is physical by the physical; water purifies the body, the Spirit 
seals the soul; sprinkled, as to the heart, by the Spirit, and 
washed, as to the body, by pure water, we come to God." 
Sprinkling and washing are instrumental means to effect a 
change of condition. 

GREGORY NAZIANZEN. 

The testimony of Gregory 1ST., as to the two points: 1. 
That the sprinklings under the law were baptisms. 2. That 
the water used in Patristic baptism had a baptizing juicer 
communicated to it, and on that account, and on that ac- 
count only, was capable of baptizing, is the same as the tes- 
timony of Cyril and Ambrose. 1. On the first point we have 
not the direct use of the word baptism, but it would be the 
veriest despair which would rest an argument on the absence 



BAPTISM BY POURING AND SPRINKLING. 195 

of a word in the presence of the thing. 2. Catechumens are 
invited to come to baptism, and to partake of the purifying 
power of the water, which is extolled as transcending that 
belonging to all the other agencies employed under the law 
for effecting baptism. There was power in hyssop to bap- 
tize (change the condition); there was power in sacrificial 
blood to baptize (change the condition); there was power in 
the ashes of the heifer, sprinkling the unclean, to baptize 
(change the condition); but there is "a power of baptism" 
in Patristical water, which far excels all these, according to 
Gregory. These baptisms of sacrificial blood and heifer 
ashes could not perfectly take away sin, but Patristic bap- 
tism could take away every sin; therefore these imperfect 
baptisms were only types of that perfect baptism which 
thoroughly changes the moral condition of body and soul. 

This view of baptism (effected by any influence competent 
to make a thorough change of condition, irrespective of form 
of operation) is identical with the view presented by the Clas- 
sics; it has nothing in common with the theory. 



BAPTISM BY POUKING AND SPKINKLING. 

Ezekiel 36 : 25, 26. 

" Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be 
clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I 
cleanse y T ou. 

"A new heart, also, will I give you, and a new spirit will I 
put within you." 

Septuagint. 

Kal pavui *<p' bp.aq xa6apov udcup, xai xadapHjQrjGeaQs axo xa<ra>v zwv 
dxadapfnaiv 6/xwv, xai arcu -dyrwv ruJv eidwXwv up.ajv, xai xatiapat u/iaz, xai 
dwffu) V[iiv xapoiav xatvijv, xai ~vs.dtxa xatvbv dwau) iv u/avs. 

Interpretation. 

"Eteffundam (sive aspergam) super vos aquam mundam . . . . 
ita ut super credentes, et ab errore conversos, effunderem aquam 
mundam baptismi salutaris, et mundarem eos ab abominationibus 



196 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

suis . . . . et darem eis cor novum ut crederent in Filium Dei, et 
spiritum novum, de quibus David loquitur: Cor mundum crea in 
me, Deus, et spiritum rectum innova in viscribus meis (Ps. 50 : 21). 
Et considerandum, quod cor novum, et spiritus novus detur per 
effusionem et aspersionem aquae." 

" And I will pour out (or sprinkle) upon you clean water .... 
so that upon the believing and those converted, I will pour out 
the clean water of saving baptism, and I will cleanse them from 
their abominations and from all their errors, with which they 
have been possessed, and I will give to them a new heart, that 
they may believe upon the Son of God, and a new spirit, of which 
David speaks : Create in me a clean heart and renew a right 
spirit within me (Ps. 50 : 21). And it is to be observed, that a 
new heart and a new spirit may be given by the pouring and 
sprinkling of water." — Jerome, v, 341, 342. 

" Adspersio autem secundum legem emundatio peccatorum 
erat, per fidem populum sanguinis adspersione purificans (Ps. 
50 : 9) ; sacramentum futurse ex Domini sanguine adspersionis, 
fide interim legis sanguine holocaustomatum repensante." — Hil- 
ary, i, 238. 

" But sprinkling according to the law was the cleansing of sin, 
through faith purifying the people by the sprinkling of blood 
(Ps. 50 : 9); a sacrament of the future sprinkling by the blood 
of the Lord, faith, meanwhile, supplementing the blood of the 
legal sacrifice/' — Hilary, i, 238. 

Ka\ $ elxwv abr\ too ^aTZTiaparoq lymr'Xev re xavTOTe Tzdvzaq robe; xar' 
Ixeivov rbv xaipbv > ' IaparjXtraq xai kaio^ev — wq Uaoloq eypa^'su (1 Cor. 
10:1, 2): Kai wq Trpo^rsoooffiv, 'h&xirjA — (36:25) 'Paw £<p' v/iaq 
vdcop xatiapov. . . . Aao'id di 'Pavnelg jxe 5<T(j<o-u). 

"And the very image of baptism both continually illuminated 
and saved all Israel at that time — as Paul wrote (1 Cor. 10 : 1, 
2) : and as prophesied Ezekiel, 36 : 25, < I will sprinkle clean water 
upon you, and you shall be clean from all your sins;' and David 
(Ps. 50 : 9) : 'Sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be clean.'" — 
Didymus Alex., 713. 

BX(-st<; roo ftaTiTtviiazoq rr t v dwap.i» Qdpffst, l hpovGa\r ( i±, — 

^Pavrtsl iy u/xaq udwp xadapbv. 

" Thou seest the power of baptism. — Be of good courage, O 



BAPTISM BY POURING AND SPRINKLING. 197 

Jerusalem, the Lord will take away all thy iniquities. The 
Lord will wash away the uncleanness of his sons and daughters 
by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning. He will 
sprinkle upon you clean water and ye shall be purified from all 
your sin." — Cyril of Jerusalem, 418. 

"Ut inde exeamus loti sanguine nostro. Baptisma enim san- 
guinis solum est quod nos puriores reddat, quam aquae baptismus 
reddidit. . . . Mini si concederet Deus ut proprio sanguine di- 
luerer, ut baptismum secundum morte pro Christo suscepta per- 
ciperem. . . . Post istud baptisma." 

11 That we may leave this world washed by our own blood. For 
it is only the baptism of blood which can make us more pure 
than the baptism of water made us. . . . If God would grant to 
me that I might be cleansed by my own blood, that I might 
attain that second baptism, dying for Christ, I would depart out 
of this world secure. . . . After this baptism." — Origen, ii, 980. 

"Neque enim spiritus sine aqua operari potest, neque aqua sine 
spiritu. — For neither can the Spirit operate without water, nor 
water without Spirit." — Cyprian, 1057. 

Ati oi xadapi^eaQzi xa\ dyA'saBai to udwp xpuJrov rod Kpea)^, ha duvrfi?] 
r<p idlaj fia-rlff/iart to.-; dtrnpTiaz zoo fiaTiTiZopivou dvSpcoTtou d-off/iu^ai 
Aid re 'h^sxnjX. — 36 : 25. 

" But it is necessary that the water be first purified and sancti- 
fied by the priest, that it may be able by its own baptism to 
wipe off the sins of the baptized man. And through Ezekiel, 
the prophet, the Lord says: 'And I will sprinkle you with pure 
water/" — Cyprian, 1082. 

"Ezek. 36:25; Numb. 19:13; 8:7; 19 : 9.— Unde apparet 
aspersionem quoque aquae instar salutaris lavacri obtinere." 

""Whence it appears that the sprinkling of water, also, like 
the saving washing, obtains divine grace." — Cyprian, 1148. 

Kai to?? ddxpufft fia7ZTi^dps>o^ ix deuripou. — "Baptized a second 
time by tears." — Clemens Alex., ii, 649. 

JEROME. 

The "clean water of saving baptism," Jerome declares is 
communicated by "pouring or sprinkling." The effect of 
pouring or sprinkling this clean water is a baptism exhibited 



198 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

in "a new heart and a new spirit." This is, indeed, a thor- 
oughly changed condition without dipping or covering. 

Jerome thinks that this baptism (changed condition), 
through the power of "clean water" sprinkled or poured, is 
so remarkable that he attaches to it a nota bene: "A new 
heart and a new spirit may be given by the pouring or 
sprinkling of water." 

This eminent scholar, then, is to be added to the list of 
those who believed that baptism was a changed condition 
induced by a powerful influence imparted to the water, and 
through it to those who received it in the ritual ordinance. 
Jerome never thought of such a thing as a Judaic or a Pa- 
tristic baptism being a dipping or a covering, any more than 
Classic writers thought of a baptism by wine-drinking being 
a dipping or a covering. 

HILARY. 

The power of blood sprinkling, under the law, to change 
the condition of the soul, when assisted by faith, Hilary, also, 
teaches. He declares this blood sprinkling to have been a 
typical sacrament. The only one which it could represent 
was that of baptism. According to his view, the sin-remit- 
ting power of the blood of Christ was exerted through the 
Sacrament of Baptism. And the mode of application is 
represented as by " sprinkling." Let no one imagine that I 
represent the (common) mode of baptism by Patrists to have 
been by sprinkling. I do no such thing. I do what is more to 
my purpose. I show that their view of baptism was such, 
that in the very act of administering it in a manner the 
farthest possible removed from sprinkling, they still felt that 
there was no possible reason why they might not speak in 
the freest manner of baptism by sprinkling. That they did 
so speak under such circumstances, is just as certain as that 
we have their writings. Either these men knew nothing of 
the clipping, covering theory, or they were all, and several, 
bereft of their senses when they wrote the books which have 
come down to us. 



BAPTISM BY POURING AND SPRINKLING. 199 



DIDYMUS ALEXANDRIXUS. 

This distinguished Greek scholar tells us that " the image 
of baptism" was ever with the Jews in its instructive and 
saving power. 

Can imagination conceive of any greater contrast than 
that presented by Dr. Carson, in his conception of baptism 
as a dipping of pots and cups and of the legs and shoulders 
of sacrificial victims, and that of Didymus, as a source of 
illumination and salvation ? 

But worse, if possible, than this. Didymus places the 
theorists in the very sharpest of dilemmas. He tells us that 
this "image of baptism" is exemplified in the passage of 
Paul, 1 Cor. 10 : 1, 2, and of Ezekiel 36 : 25, and David, Ps. 
50 : 9. Every theorist accepts the first as an undoubted and 
most charming " image of baptism." " What could be more 
clear, or more striking, or more demonstrative of the truth- 
fulness of the theory, than (the dipping?) the covering, by 
the cloud and the water walls, of those in the depths of the 
sea?" May be nothing; at least we have nothing, just now, 
to say against it. But what of that other "image of bap- 
tism?" What of that "sprinkling with clean water" of 
Ezekiel, and that "sprinkling with hyssop" of David? 
Please poiut out to us the overhanging cloud, the congealed 
waters, the cavernous depths which "dip, or at least com- 
pletely cover," in this case ? Or, not to stand on particulars, 
substitute for these items aught else, though they should 
" shadow forth" the theory as " dimly" as the mythic burial 
and resurrection of JSToah. If time is wanted for imasrina- 
tion to work up the case, we will not press the solution. In 
the meanwhile we present this dilemma on behalf of the 
Alexandrine Greek, viz. : Keject the Red Sea transaction as 
an " image of baptism," or accept the sprinkling of Ezekiel 
and David as equally an "image of baptism." There is a 
baptism in each, in the one no more, no less, than the other, 
or Didymus did not understand Greek. This alternative, to 
be sure, would cause but little embarrassment to Carson ; 
there is probably room enough for Didymus in that same 



200 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

school to which this never erring theorist proposes to send 
the Angel Gabriel. 

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. 

Our attention is again called, 1. To the power of baptism, 
— rod (3a7crt<TfiaTos. 2. To the fact that this power is developed 
by "the sprinkling of pure water." If " line upon line" 
will establish as truth that these baptisms were not dippings, 
but the result of a divine power exerted through water, and 
that sprinklings of this water were baptisms, then the truth 
is established. 

ORIGEN. 

1. The use of "loti," washed, claims attention. It shows 
the groundless character of the claim set up by Dr. Carson, 
that Ao6u>, or lavo, when no part is specified, shall put the 
whole man into water or in some way cover him with it. 
This demand overlooks the fact that in religious washings 
no mere physical cleansing is contemplated. And, conse- 
quently, a man may be completely washed, religiously, by 
the application of a cleansing element to a very limited part 
of the bodj\ And that in such cases "washing" does not 
refer to the local effect of the application, but to the nature 
and extent of its religious influence. These things are clearly 
shown by the present case. No one could be so irrational 
as to suppose that this refers to a physical washing. None, 
surely could be so infatuated by theory as to imagine that 
Origen represents the martyrs as "covered" in their blood. 
Yet they are represented as washed by blood, completely 
washed from head to foot, thoroughly washed body and soul. 
How is this? Because there is a virtue, influence, power 
("jus," "vis," " duvafitq^) in martyr blood, which takes away 
sin and thus cleanses ; and this cleansing is called a washing, 
which in no wise depends on the extent to which the blood 
is applied. When Dr. Carson would make two kinds of 
cleansing out of sprinkling and toashing by the blood of Christ, 
(making the latter to cover,) he does that which is, absolutely, 
without foundation. The same thing is indicated by either 



BAPTISM BY POURING AND SPRINKLING. 201 

phraseology ; in the former the modal application is stated, 
and in the other the result of the application. The same is 
true with regard to purifying water or any other purifying 
agency; no conclusion can be drawn as to the mode or ex- 
tent of use, because the result is, religiously, a universal 
washing. — Martyr blood, not one drop of which falls upon 
the person, "washes" the whole man. The remembrance 
of this usage would have saved from some great errors. 
Sprinkling can wash from impurity, or from sin, as well as 
a deluge of waters; and therefore may baptize, as Origen 
declares martyr blood does. 

2. Baptisma sanguinis. — Baptism of blood, is phraseology 
demanding consideration. This use of the genitive joins 
with the simple ablative ("proprio sanguine"), as well as 
with the exigencies of the case, to make imperative the con- 
clusion, that in this baptism blood is the source whence comes 
the causative influence inducing the baptism, and is not the 
element in which an object is to be mersed, dipped, or covered. 
To discriminate between the agency effecting a baptism, and 
the element within which the baptized object is placed (when 
such element exists), is of vital importance. This is espe- 
cially true where a fluid is the agency causative of the bap- 
tism ; because a fluid is the natural element within which a 
baptism takes place, and therefore, offers a special facility 
for the deception, by ourselves or others, which would rob 
it of its true position as an agency and convert it into the 
wholly distinct office of a receiving element. The case before 
us is such as not only to assist in reaching, but to compel the 
adoption of a true conclusion. The use of the cases, as just 
indicated, would be enough for the scholar; but, possibly, 
not enough for the controversialist. But even controver- 
sialists, generally at least, will hold their peace in view of 
the impossibility of a martyr being either dipped or covered 
in Ids own blood. 

Dr. Carson ought here, on his own principles, to run up 
the white flag. lie says, that in any case of use where a 
primary meaning is impossible, there a secondary meaning 
finds credentials of legitimate birth. Now, it is absolutely 



202 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

impossible for a martyr to be baptized, dipped, covered in 
Lis blood, which Dr. C. says is primary baptism; but Origen 
says that their own blood does baptize all Christian martyrs; 
therefore, Origen must use "baptize" in a different sense 
from the primary "dipping, covering." 

This is logic, and common sense, and consistency, but, 
alas! rhetoric slays them all. Hyperbole can expand "the 
blood of a frog" to the dimensions of an ocean, and "dip a 
lake" into it; and why should its magical arts prove incom- 
petent to fill a baptistery with the blood-drops of martyrdom 
and dip "the witness" into it? 

The theory has executed' feats as difficult as this, and we 
have not much, hope of the controversialist. But we ask 
the attention of all others to the fact, that Origen declares 
that their own blood baptizes martyrs, and that he wished 
thus to be baptized himself, not to come out of a bloody pool all 
dripping with gore, but that his condition as a sinner might be 
thoroughly changed, and his soul pass, washed from all sin, 
into the presence of God ! 

3. Baptismum secundum. — This blood baptism was a " sec- 
ond baptism;" what was the first? Water baptism. Now, 
observe that between these two baptisms, as to their gene- 
ral nature or modal execution, Origen does not make the 
slightest distinction. In so far as they were baptisms there 
was none to be made. They were of the same general na- 
ture, having power to cleanse from sin; and as to modal 
execution, such a thing was never known since the Greek 
was a language, so far as the word was concerned. While, 
therefore, the mode of executing the first baptism (by water) 
may have differed from the mode of executing the second 
baptism (by blood), this difference no more controls nor be- 
longs to the baptism, than does the mode of martyrdom, by 
beheading or crucifixion, affect the making or unmaking of 
a blood baptism. 

Water-baptism and blood-baptism are identified as bap- 
tisms of like reality and character, (differing only in the 
measure of their value,) by being termed, without qualifica- 
tion, a first and a second baptism. But we have farther evi- 



BAPTISM BY POURING AND SPRINKLING. 203 

dence. They not only stand on the most absolute equality 
as baptisms, but the water and the blood stands each, to its 
own baptism, in precisely the same relation, namely, that of 
an agency. As "baptisma sanguinis" indicates blood to be 
the source of this baptism, so, "aqu«3 baptismus" indicates 
water as the source of that baptism. Neither water nor blood 
— not water any more than blood — is represented as a re- 
ceiving element; they are alike agencies. In full accord with 
this grammatical testimony, is the unbroken Patristic testi- 
mony, which ascribes to water a " power" to baptize, wholly 
independent of its natural qualities as a fluid, which " power," 
and not fluidity, is the pivot on* which turns all their inter- 
pretations of Judaic baptisms and of images of "the perfect 
baptism." 

Now, it is a matter of infinite indifference in what man-- 
ner the water was employed in this first baptism. Employ 
it as you will, by sprinkling, by pouring, by dipping into it, 
by walking into it to such a depth, or such a depth, and 
dipping so much as may be left above the water, or by any 
other simple or complex movements imaginable, and after 
all is done, Origen declares that the water is an agency to 
purify from sin, and that the baptism is a changed condition, 
produced by this " power," independent of any modal use. 
A baptism in water (drowning or covering indefinitely) has 
no more to do with the " baptism of water " of Origen, than 
a baptism in wine (drowning or covering indefinitely) has to 
do with a baptism of 'wine (making thoroughly drunk). "Water 
and wine, as fluids, have a quality of nature adapting them 
to receive and envelop objects placed within them, and this 
is called a baptism of those objects. Wine has a quality of 
nature (intoxicating) which develops itself, not when objects 
are pat into it, but when drunk. And the development of 
this influence by drinking, is called a baptism. These two 
baptisms, ia wine, as a receiving fluid, and of wine, as an in- 
toxicating fluid, have this in common, that they both exhibit 
their objects under a thoroughly changed condition; but as 
to the nature of the condition, and as to the mode of effect- 
ing the condition, the differences are such as to present noth- 



204 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

ing in common. Patristic water has a "power," not intoxi- 
cating, but spiritually purifying; not of nature, but by special 
divine communication; which "power," like that of wine, is 
capable of baptizing. Its development is effected by sprink- 
ling, by pouring, and by washing. A man baptized by this 
"power" of water, differs from a man baptized in "simple" 
water, just as a soul without a sin-spot differs from a man 
who is — very wet. Origen's philology is unimpeachable; his 
theology is not so good. 

CYPRIAN. 

Cyprian offers the same testimony as that already con- 
sidered. 

1. Water has a power to baptize. But this power is not 
a quality inherent. "The Spirit cannot baptize without 
water, nor can water baptize without the Spirit." How ab- 
surdly untrue would this be if the writer referred to water 
as capable of receiving an object within itself. This, surely, 
it can do without the special intervention of the Holy Spirit. 
In this respect the heathen had baptisms; yet they were not 
baptisms, because the water was used without the Spirit, 
and no baptism was effected; the condition of the soul re- 
mained unchanged. 

2. Therefore, Cyprian says: "The water itself must be 
first purified, sanctified, baptized, that it may by its own 
baptism wipe off the sins of the baptized man." So Tertul- 
lian says: "Ita de sancto sanctificata natura aquarum, et ipsa 
sanctificare concepit." Is it not surprising that the friends 
of the theory should have overlooked the great gulf which 
separates baptisms by such water, from baptisms in water, 
through a natural enveloping quality ? 

3. Cyprian quotes the text under consideration, to show 
that these peculiar baptisms were effected by the "sprink- 
ling" of this pure water. 

How marvellously inept is the objection that sprinkling 
cannot baptize by the "power" of this water! Go tell the 
old Greeks that drinking cannot baptize by the power of 



BAPTISM BY POURING AND SPRINKLING. 205 

wine, that hearing cannot baptize by the power of bewilder- 
ing questions, and they will tell you that your Greek sounds 
very " modern" in their ears. "But these were cases of 
'figure.'" Yes, very much such "figure" as that of Gale, 
which made Carson laugh; and very much such "figure" 
as that of Carson, which might well make Fuller smile; 
and very much such "figure" as that of Fuller, at which 
some friend, who comes after him, will yet kindly smile; 
while all the world will laugh at a theory which fills the 
Classics with figure-pools and torrents, and empties the 
treasury of rhetoric to meet the exhaustive demand from 
Patrists for a dipping ornamentation. 

4. Cyprian quotes, besides this passage of Ezekiel, those 
in Numb. 19 : 13; Numb. 8:7; Kumb."l9 : 19; for the ex- 
press purpose of showing that the baptizing power of w r ater 
is developed by sprinkling, as truly as by any other mode. 

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS. 

This learned Greek declares that a second baptism may 
be by tears, as the learned Origen had declared that it might 
be by martyr-blood. Shall this baptism, by sprinkling tears, 
give origin to another figure — hyperbolic? "Well, I suppose 
that is the best disposition which the theory can make of it. 

Alongside of these clear and reiterated statements of bap- 
tisms by sprinkling of water, blood, and tears, look at these 
statements of Dr. Carson : " Sprinkling cannot be called bap- 
tism with more propriety than sand can be called water. 
This I do not leave as an inference from my doctrines: I wish 
to proclaim it to all my brethren." (p. 392.) This is undoubt- 
edly true on Dr. C.'s theory as to the meaning of the word, 
viz., " dip, and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature." 
But to make good this theory, it will be necessary to enlarge 
the school-house at Tubbermore, and provide primers for all 
the old Greeks, and the whole army of Patrists, that they 
may learn anew their native tongue. 

Again (p. 400): "If one instance of sprinkling was called 
immersion, I would give up the point of univocal meaning." 



206 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

Let us sec: "Qui enim baptizatur . . . Moyses aspergebat." 
According to Carson, " baptize" always means immerse; then 
Ambrose says, "He who was immersed . . Moses sprinkled." 
Again : "He was sprinkled with the blood of the lamb, who 
wished to be cleansed with typical immersion (baptism)." Is 
this the lightning which Dr. Carson called for to smite his 
univocalism ? And (p. 401) : "A people who called a puri- 
fying, by sprinkling or pouring, a baptism! ! ! Where is such 
a people? IsFot under the heavens. The facts alleged to prove 
this, are all mere assumptions."' Pretty substantial assump- 
tions. And with Clement, and Cyprian, and Origen, and 
Cyril, and Didymus, and Hilary, and Jerome, as represen- 
tatives of " the people who call purifying, by pouring or 
sprinkling, a baptism," the neighborhood " where such peo- 
ple may be found," is, at least, proximately answered. 

The Greeks, or the theorists, certainly are in trouble as 
to what constitutes a baptism. The theorists say that angels 
and inspired men are w T rong if they do not agree with them, 
and I suppose we may as well throw in the Greeks (Classics 
and Patrists) into the bargain. 



CIRCUMCISION" BAPTISM. 

BAPTISM BY CIRCUMCISION. 

Joshua 5:3, 9. 

" And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the 
children of Israel, at the hill, of the foreskins. 

" And the Lord said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away 
the reproach of Egypt from off you." 

Interpretation, 

Tiq ouv en fiot ~spiTo;jJrjq Xoyoq otto too 6soo [lapruprfihzi. Tiq ky.sbou 
too (Sa.TZTi<7iiaToq xpda dyiw -vsu/jLOLTt l3e0a~Ttffp.£va). 

"What, then, is the word of circumcision to me, having re- 
ceived testimony from God? What need is there of that bap- 
tism to one baptized by the Holy Spirit V 



BAPTISM BY CIRCUMCISION. 207 

'Exzhos Xiysrai dzuripav -spiTOfiijv . . . . yq Tcspihe/nev rjpdq auros 
'Irjffouq Xptffruq. 

" He is said to have circumcised the people with a second cir- 
cumcision, by stony knives, which was an announcement of 
this circumcision with which Jesus Christ himself circumcises 
us from stoues and other idols." — Justin Martyr, 437, 757. 

IJcptrorxr n ru-r/.rj ooca ff<p pa/is . 

" For it is better to be sanctified unconsciously, than to depart 
unsealed and imperfect. And the evidence to us, of this, is cir- 
cumcision on the eighth day, being a typical seal, and adminis- 
tered to those without intelligence." — Gregory Nazianzen, ii, 400. 

Thv meufiQTtxi]V Xafiftd.vofj.sv awpaylda dyioi Hvsopart did rob lourpou 
XeplTep.v6p.EVOt. . . . 'Ev ttj -epizop.y too Xpiarou. 

" Therefore, by the likeness of the faith of Abraham, we come 
into adoption. And, then, after faith, like to him, we receive 
the spiritual seal, being circumcised through washing by the 

Holy Spirit By the circumcision of Christ, being buried 

with him by baptism." — Cyril, 513. 

" Videamus tamen quale sit hoc ipsum quod dicitur, quia ho- 
die abstuli opprobrium a filiis Israel. Omnes homines etiamsi 
ex lege veniant, etiamsi per Moyses eruditi sint, habent tamen 
opprobrium JEgypti in semet ipsis, opprobrium peccatorum. . . . 
Sed ex quo venit Christus, et dedit nobis secundam circumcisi- 
onem per baptismum regenerations, et purgavit animas nostras, 
abjecimus hsec omnia, et pro iis assumpsimus conscientiae bona) 
astipulationem in Domino. Tunc per secundam circumcisionem 
ablata sunt nobis opprobriaiEgypti, et purgata sunt vitia pecca- 
torum. . . . Audis quia hodie abstulit ate opprobrium iEgypti." 

"We may see, however, what means that saying: 'To-day, 
I have taken away reproach from the children of Israel/ All 
men, even though they may come from the law, even though 
they may have been taught by Moses, have, notwithstanding, in 
themselves, the reproach of Egypt, the reproach of sins. . . . 
But since Christ came and gave to us the second circumcision 
by the baptism of regeneration, and purged our souls, we have 
east away all these things, and in their stead have received the 
answer of a good conscience in the Lord. Then, by the second 



208 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

circumcision the reproaches of Egypt have been taken away 
from us, and the vices of our sins have been purged. Thou 
hearest that to-day he takes from thee the reproach of Egypt." 
—Origen, ii, 850, 852. 

Circumcision is a Baptism, 

JUSTIN MARTYR. 

Justin Martyr explicitly declares that circumcision is a 
baptism. This declaration is marked neither by hesitation 
nor by qualification. He makes no explanation of the use 
as though it were unusual and needed apology; but simply 
and absolutely, as though well understood, he speaks, cur- 
rente verbo, of circumcision as a baptism. 

This use of the word is too palpable to be denied. Is, 
then, univocalism abandoned? The promise was that it 
would be when one case of sprinkling was called baptism. 
Such case has been adduced, and now we present another 
quite as far removed from a dipping as is sprinkling. Dr. 
Carson boasts that " no case has been adduced where the 
word must have any other meaning than dipping." Does 
circumcision mean dipping ? 

But what does Dr. Carson say of this case ? This (p. 490) : 
" He sometimes, also, speaks of circumcision as a baptism, 
or agreeing in the emblem, though altogether different in 
the things and in the words that designate them. Study 
this, and it will show how the Fathers can call various 
things by the name of baptism, without importing that they 
are included in the meaning of the word." 

" Study this," the Doctor says. Another development of 
his penchant for sending folks " to school." But some things 
cannot be studied out, in school, without the help of " the 
master," and this Delphic utterauce is, surel}% one of them. 

Dr. Carson has written a book of half a thousand pages, 
to prove that baptism is a modal act — and nothing but a 
modal act, and claims that if there is any truth in axioms 
he has settled such to be its meaning; and yet, a case, ad- 
mittedly called " baptism " by a highly cultivated Greek 



BAPTISM BY CIRCUMCISION. 209 

philosopher, in which the act done differs 1 from the act 
claimed to be proved by axioms, as far as pole from pole, 
and as absolutely as a straight line from a circle, is dismissed 
in five sphynxic lines thrown out for " study !" Every de- 
feated leader has a right to choose his own method and line 
of retreat. It is generally done under the cover of thick 
darkness ; and so it is here. 

While I do not understand these lines and give up their 
"study," there are some things in them and about them of 
which we may speak. 

1. "He sometimes speaks of cutting around (circumcision) 
as a dipping (baptism)." Does any one believe that Justin 
Martyr ever spoke of the act of" cutting around" as an act 
of "dipping?" Has such a statement, enunciated by any 
one, a claim to anything but silent incredulity? 

2. Where does Dr. C. get that addendum — "or agreeing in 
the emblem ? " There is not one syllable of it in the words 
of Justin ; nor one to justify its introduction. Justin calls 
circumcision a baptism, and baptism it must remain in spite 
of any attempt by light-handedness to change it into some- 
thing else. 

3. But what is meant by — "or agreeing in the emblem?" 
It, of course, flatly denies that circumcision is a baptism; 
which Justin had straitly affirmed; but, apart from this, after 
the Martyr's statement has been murdered, what usurper is 
appointed to its place ? On this same page we are told that 
the converted Greek philosopher believed that baptism was 
immersion, and that he believed that immersion was em- 
blematical of death, burial, and resurrection; now does cir- 
cumcision agree with immersion as ah emblem of death, 
burial, and resurrection? 

Dr. Carson might say in unravelling — "study this" — cer- 
tainly this is its emblem: the flesh cut off dies; who can deny 
that it was buried ? The burden of proof does not lie with 
me; that it may be buried is enough for my purpose; proof 
after so many ages cann>ot be asked ; and, as for resurrection, 
"who that has a soul" cannot see it in the life of the babe, 
beautifully developing after the "death" and "burial "of 

14 



210 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

its own flesh ! Or, with less of rhetoric, but more of learn- 
ing, the "student" might be instructed thus: "Circuni" 
means around; and, if ctimly yet beautifully, shadows forth 
the waters which are around every immersed disciple; while 
the act of "scision" cannot go "around" without first de- 
scending and then ascending, and as a downward movement 
and an upward movement are involved in every case of " dip- 
ping," what could be a more beautiful emblem of this act ? 
Circum-cision, therefore, is a beautiful emblem of dipping 
and surrounding with water! Undoubtedly. How surprising 
that things made palpable, under a competent teacher, by a 
few luminous words, should otherwise remain hid for ages ! 
Why this, before incomprehensible emblem of death, burial, 
and resurrection in circumcision, is, now, just as plain as the 
death, burial, and resurrection of Noah in the flood, of Israel 
walking between the water-walls, and of the disciples in the 
wind! "Not so much light as Christian honesty," must be 
wanting in the man who cannot see a demonstration so plain 
as this! 

Having sufficiently admired at these profundities in the 
school of Tubbermore, let us now turn in another direction. 

4. Admitting, or certainly not questioning, the exegesis 
to which we have just attended, we are under the necessity 
of putting its remarkable light " under a bushel," inasmuch 
as there is no " emblem " in, nor introducible into, the state- 
ment of Justin. This is absolutely certain. This attempt 
to ally the circumcision baptism of Justin with the ritual 
baptism of the theory, is all in the air. It is as foundation- 
less as a dream of the night. The statement is: " Of what 
use to me is circumcision baptism, having been baptized by 
the Holy Spirit f" What " emblem " is there here ? What 
room is there for its introduction by the most heated imagi- 
nation ? Is there any death, burial, resurrection, or dipping, 
in "baptism by the Holy Spirit?" Is not the statement 
simply and clearly this: Having received a perfect baptism, 
what need have I of an imperfect baptism? 

Dr. Carson, instead of raising the question, "May I not 
have mistaken the nature of a baptism ?" when he meets 



BAPTISM BY CIRCUMCISION. 211 

with the word in circumstances irreconcilable with his con- 
ception of it, sets to work to cloud the inconsistency, so that 
its rude outlines ma}- be as little repulsive as possible. I do 
not say that he" does this consciously, to evade truth; for I 
believe that his ideas upon this subject were so fully regarded 
as absolute truth, that he would, in very deed as he says that 
he would, have told the Angel Gabriel, denying it, to sit down 
at his feet and " study this." 

This writer, after affirming with all the emphasis of which 
language is capable, that " baptize " must always, everywhere, 
mean dip; and after resorting to all sorts of figures to bring 
it "dimly' 5 out, where it confessedly was not, in fact; and 
after subjecting common sense to torture, (so that with its 
dislocated members it was no longer recognizable,) in order 
to secure some cry that might sound like " dip," is now com- 
pelled to admit, that here is a case in which there is no dip- 
ping, in which figure can form no shadow of dipping, and in 
which common sense presents no bone unbroken by which, 
on the rack, a groan might be extorted to save a dipping. 
We leave the case, in extremis, to be medicated by any heroic 
remedies which the wit of the fast friends of the theory may 
suggest. In the meanwhile we seek an exposition of the 
passage under other auspices. 

Justin was a Greek. He spoke and wrote the language 
of Homer and Plato. He had the knowledge to speak it 
correctly; he had the right to use it" with the same breadth 
of freedom ; and he has authority in his usage equal to that 
of any Classic. Classic usage has been examined. It has 
been proved to the satisfaction of Greek scholars, (between 
whose attainments, and those of Dr. Carson, I wish not to 
make invidious comparisons,) that paicrtCw does not make de- 
mand for a definite act, as Dr. C. declares, but for condition : 
1. With inness of position. 2. Condition, controlled by in- 
fluence, without intusposition. Or, stated in terms suffi- 
ciently comprehensive to embrace both classes: "Whatever 
act or influence is capable of thoroughly changing the char- 
acter, state, or condition of an object, is capable of baptizing 
that object, and by such change of character, state, or con- 



212 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

dition, assimilating that condition to itself, does, in fact, 
baptize it." 

Classic usage presents such an endless variety in the forms 
of action and in the natures of condition, that no limitation 
can be assigned to either, beyond that in the statement now 
made. 

Apply, now, that result reached, by a detailed study of 
every known case of Classic Baptism, to the case in hand. 
Is it capable of expounding it ? If not, there must be error 
or imperfection, for a complete definition must fairly cover 
every case of usage, without exception. In reply, we may 
pass by the form of the act, for with this baptism has nothing 
to do, and limit our evidence to the competency of the act 
or influence to thoroughly change the condition of its object. 
This, then, is the determining question: "Does circumcision 
change the character, state, or condition of the circumcised 
person ?" Can the most devoted friend of the theory answer 
this question in the negative ? Is not every circumcised per- 
son, man or babe, taken by circumcision out of an uncove- 
nanted condition, and brought into a covenanted condition? 
It is not necessary to raise here the question as to the nature 
of this covenant, whether it embraced spiritual blessings, or 
was limited to those which were temporal ; either answers 
our purpose perfectly well. The condition demanded by 
the word requires nothing beyond completeness and assimi- 
lation. Circumcision, as a covenant seal, brings into a new 
condition as to the promises of £rod, whatever the character 
of those promises may be. 

If there is any authority in Classic usage, Justin is over- 
shadowed by all the fulness of that authority, when he calls 
circumcision a baptism. One square foot does not more 
fully cover another square foot than does the definition 
cover this case of usage. Consider, now, the defiance which 
it offers to all the manipulations of the theory, to bring it 
under the control of its errors, and can there be any doubt 
as to the answer which should be given to the inquiry, 
" What is truth?" The theory is bankrupt. 

Circumcision by Stony Knives. — Carson says: "In like man- 



BAPTISM BY CIRCUMCISION. 213 

ner Justin speaks of Christians as having the spiritual cir- 
cumcision of which Greeks, and those like him, were par- 
takers, though they had nothing that literally resembled what was 
imported by the word" This admission springs a mine beneath 
the Doctor's theorizing, which makes it a hopeless wreck. 
In scores of cases, in Classic usage, he has attempted to find 
out a resemblance — where there was none — to the literal 
meaning of the word, as claimed by him. Thus he hunts 
up some figure by which he can convert the covered and 
uncovered sea-shore into a beautiful case of "dipping." "In 
like manner " water poured upon an altar is converted into 
a dipping. " In like manner " drunkenness becomes a dip- 
ping, sleep becomes a dipping, sickness becomes a dipping, 
magical arts become a dipping, hard study becomes a dip- 
ping, an overloaded stomach becomes a dipping, &c, &c, &c. 
And for what is all this irrajtional procedure ? Why, in good 
sooth, to establish a philological miracle; to show that a word 
of physical form of act (so claimed) carries that form of act 
with it out of the physical into the metaphysical world, and 
where the act is drinking, hearing, seeing, eating, thinking, still 
it is "dipping!" Can the history of philology parallel so 
wild an assumption of the infinite credulity of men ? And 
all this rather than accept that so universal principle, of a 
secondary meaning to words, as applicable to this word. 

But after trampling under foot confessedly contradictory 
facts, and transmuting, by some Eosicrucian principle, "one 
form of act into another form of act;" and after ransacking 
imagination to discover " a resemblance " to the physical 
form, or, at least, some shadowy picture, we have at last the 
confession, that a word which literally expresses a definite 
form of action, may be applied to cases in which there is 
" nothing that literally resembles what was imported by the 
word." It is hardly necessary to say, that under such cir- 
cumstances either the word has lost all meaning, or it has 
acquired a secondary meauing. 

But while Dr. Carson abandons, incontinently, all attempt 
to discover a " cutting around," real or pictured, in the cir- 
cumcision by Christ received by Justin, he challenges angels 



214 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

and men to deny that there was a " dipping," in the baptism 
by the Holy Spirit, received by this same Justin. If it should 
be said, that the admission of Dr. Carson that circumcision 
has lost its form of act, does not imply that baptism has lost 
its form of act, I answer: 1. There is no form of act in bap- 
tism, to lose. 2. Any one who admits that "circumcision" 
has lost its form of act in circumcision by Christ, and denies 
that " baptism" has lost its form of act in baptism by the 
Holy Spirit, has certainly lost his reason. 

This rejection of what is vital to a word in its primary use, 
and the adoption of some associated idea in secondary use, 
is of constant development. "I am an American," means, 
primarily, I am born on American soil. But one born on the 
other side of the globe may say, "I am an American," re- 
jecting claim to birth, and claiming to hold the principles 
which distinguish American citizens. Paul says of un cir- 
cumcised Christians, ye are the circumcision, because they 
held the principles which appertained to circumcision; and he 
denies that the circumcised Jew was of the circumcision, be- 
cause they rejected those principles. The same thing is ex- 
hibited in the declaration, " They are not all Israel which 
are of Israel." In such usage there is a modification of the 
primary meaning, and the development of a conception 
which was subordinately in the primary meaning, or which 
had become an outgrowth of it, or an accretion around it. 
So Paanfca rejects the form of condition belonging to its lit- 
eral, primary use, and develops the idea of controlling influ- 
ence, growing out of such form of condition. 

Justin's baptism "by the Holy Spirit" rejects form of con- 
dition and expresses the controlling influence of the Divine 
Spirit; just as "circumcision by Christ "rejects the form of 
act and confers the reality exhibited by that act. 

I do not enter upon any detailed examination of "baptism 
by the Holy Spirit," as here spoken of, (it will come up in 
its place,) but merely remark, that as there is no more of 
dipping or covering in this baptism than there is in baptism 
by circumcision ; so, if the theory stumbles at the one, it 
ought to fall down discomfited before the other. 



BAPTISM BY CIRCUMCISION. 215 



GREGORY NAZIANZEN. 

Circumcision, typical Baptism. — This writer teaches that cir- 
cumcision was a typical seal or baptism ; and as this type 
baptism was administered to infants eight days old, when 
intelligence was yet undeveloped, so the antitype seal, or 
baptism should be administered to those who were in danger 
of dying, whether infants or adults, as was the common 
practice. It should be observed, that while Justin speaks of 
baptism by circumcision, he contrasts it, as to efficacy, with 
baptism by the Holy Spirit, while Gregory makes circum- 
cision baptism a type of ritual baptism. If the Fathers had 
regarded Christian baptism as only a type or symbol bap- 
tism, they could not have made these Judaic baptisms types 
of it, for there cannot be a type of a type ; but they believed 
it to be an efficacious baptism, one of divine power over the 
condition of the soul, and therefore, could, consistently, 
make it the antitype of Old Testament typical purifications. 
Justin Martyr was more orthodox than those that came after 
him, and he refers type baptism to baptism by the Holy 
Spirit, without the intervention of water. 

CYRIL. 

Circumcised by Washing. — " Circumcised by the Holy Spirit 
through washing." In this circumcision, the prime, efficient 
agent is the Holy Spirit, the efficient, instrumental agency 
is "the washing," and the result is an unfleshly, spiritual 
nature. 

We have here, proof, 1. Of the type character of circum- 
cision ; that it was a purification of the flesh, and therefore 
was called a baptism which was suitable to foreshadow that 
spiritual purification which cleansed the soul, and was the 
work of the Holy Spirit. 2. The Holy Spirit operated 
through the water to take away sin. 

Mem. — Cyril, Gregory, and Justin forgot to point out the 
resemblance to death, burial, and resurrection, in this type 
baptism. 



216 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

BAPTISM BY DKOPS OF BLOOD. 

Exodus 12 : 7, 12, 13. 

" And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two 
side posts, and on the upper door-post of the houses. 

" For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and 
will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt. 

"And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses 
where ye are; and when I see the blood I will pass over you." 

Interpretation. 
"Pascha nostrum pro nobis immolatus est Christus Deus." 
v E<TTa%£ yap to cu/ia goto tt^ 7zXwpd<; im ryv yyjv, xai rov jioAuafiov auzr^ 
anavra l^sxdfypsv. . . . 

Aid Tijc lZ,oixoXoyqaeo)q ixdQypev iaurov too pbizou xun> d/Aap-rjfidrwv. 

" Christ the Lord, our Passover, was slain for us. Why was 
he slain without the city, and on a high place, and not under 
some roof? This was not without reason, but that he might 
purify the nature of the air. For this reason was he slain on 
high and not beneath a roof, but with the heavens stretched 
over him instead of a roof, that the whole heavens might be 
purified. Therefore the sky was purified, and the earth was 
purified. For the blood from his side dropped upon the earth, and 
purged away all its defilement. . . . He (the thief) did not dare 
to say, 'Eemember me' until that by confession he purified 
himself from the pollution of sins. . . . For the strength of con- 
fession is great, and it has great power. For he confessed, and 
behold he found Paradise opened ; he confessed, and he, who 
was a robber, received boldness to ask a kingdom." — Chrysosiom, 
ii, 406, 409. 

Kai raura fiaxTHro/jLev ) . . . u>q dk xdi ij rcbv <pAiaJv xpt<rtg : dcd r&v 
dvaiffdijTujv (pvXdrrouaa zd 7tpo)r6toxa. 

"And shall we baptize these (infants) ? Certainly; . . . the 
evidence of this is circumcision, which is a typical seal .... 
and in like manner, the smearing of the door-posts, protecting, 
through these insensible things, the first-born." — Gregory Nazi- 
anzen, ii, 400. 

BaxTHT/xov cbq xadaprtxbv ovra ndvrwv rjfxajv. 



BAPTISM BY DROPS OF BLOOD. 217 

" lie calls his death baptism as being a purging of us all." — 
Theophylact, Matt. 22. 

" Hos duo baptismos de vulnere perfossi lateris emisit." 
" These two baptisms he shed forth from the wound of his 
pierced side." — Tertullian, 357; Paris, 1634. 

" Baptisma publico? confessionis et sanguinis proficere ad sa- 
lutem potest. . . . Sanguine suo baptizatos et passione." 

" The baptism of a public confession and of blood may avail 
for salvation, (but not to a heretic out of the church.) The Lord 
declares in the Gospel, that those baptized by his blood and 
passion are sanctified and attain the grace of the divine prom- 
ise, when he speaks to the thief believing and trusting in the 
very passion, and promises that he shall be with him in Para- 
dise."— Cyprian, 1123, 1124. 

To aifia too Tzpofia-oo Tvizoq too alfiaToq too XpcffToo. 

" The blood of the lamb is a type of the blood of Christ." — 
Basil, M. iv, 124. 

Baptism of " the First-born." 

This passage, and the interpretations directly and indi- 
rectly connected with it, establishes in the most conclusive 
manner, that there is a class of baptisms with which neither 
the act of clipping, nor a covering, effected in any way, has 
anything to do. And more than this; it is established that 
the source of the baptizing pow r er need not even be in con- 
tact with the baptized object. 

Gregory Kazianzen speaks of circumcision as typical of 
baptism, "and in like manner" the blood smeared on the 
door-posts of the families of Israel. The argument which 
he extracts from them is this : Inasmuch as typical circum- 
cision was able to influence the condition of the child, which 
was all unconscious of the transaction, and inasmuch as 
typical blood upon the door-posts destitute of all intelligence, 
was capable of influencing the condition of the child, un- 
conscious of the transaction and untouched by the blood, 
yet on whose behalf that blood was sprinkled by parents in 
the way appointed by God; therefore, infant children with- 



218 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

out any intelligence as to the ordinance, may receive antitype 
baptism, and be changed as to their condition by receiving 
a more perfect purification through the antitype, than type 
circumcision could effect; and a more perfect salvation than 
the type blood of the passover lamb could bring to " the 
first-born." This was Patristic reasoning; and whatever 
else it may show, it does show conclusively, that, in their 
view, type baptisms shadowed forth the cleansing of the 
soul from sin and its redemption unto eternal life, by puri- 
fications of the body, and the preservation of the natural 
life, and did not shadow forth " a dipping" or "a covering." 

When the root idea of all baptisms, (thorough change of 
condition,) is apprehended, not only can no embarrassment 
arise from the absence of a dipping or a covering, but, also, 
no embarrassment can arise from a baptism declared to be 
effected by a baptizing substance which does not touch the 
baptized object. 

Whether water, blood, or ashes shall be used in divine 
worship is a matter of sovereign appointment. How they 
shall be used, and what shall be their value, are matters of 
the same pure sovereignty. That blood, blood of a lamb, 
should be used in the Passover; that it should be used by 
" striking ; " that this striking should be against the door- 
posts; that the transaction should enure to the benefit of 
"the first-born," were all matters pertaining, not to the 
nature of things, however wise and fit they may have been, 
but to the good pleasure of Israel's God. It being thus 
determined that the condition of " the first-born" should be 
changed, not by dipping them into water, nor by covering 
them with blood; but by God-fearing parents striking the 
family door-posts with the bloodied hyssop branch, thus 
bringing them out of a condition of impending death, into a 
condition of unimperilled life, this change of condition, with- 
out the slightest regard to the mode of its accomplishment, 
is Classically as well as Patristically called a Baptism. They 
were baptized into a condition of safety by the sprinkled 
blood. Any attempt to solve such baptisms by " a dip- 
ping" of these little ones must be made under protest from 



BAPTISM OF THE EARTH, AIR, AND SKY. 219 

philology and common sense; not made very loud, but 
enough to clear their skirts against any charge that might 
be made hereafter of their being guilty participants, even 
by silence, in such unwisdom. 

It will be observed that I use the phraseology out of one 
condition into another condition, although there is no move- 
ment "out of" anything, or "into" anything. There is no 
change of position. The reason is, 1. The poverty of lan- 
guage. 2. Analogical fitness in some respects. In physical 
things, change involves movement; and movement out of one 
thing into another thing, involves complete change; when, 
therefore, there is " a change," not of position but condition, 
it may be expressed by a word immediately declaring move- 
ment, but implying, necessarily, the idea of "change;" and 
when the change is a complete one, we may introduce "out 
of" and " into," because of what they involve, {thorough 
change,) and not because of what they directly and of them- 
selves express; thus giving them, in such, usage, a real 
secondary value, while movement has disappeared. 

"The first-born" passed out of one condition into another 
condition, as the destroying angel passed over them, with- 
out passing, for one moment, from the quiet shelter of their 
mother's bosom. 

BAPTISM OF THE EARTH, AIR, AND SKY. 

Chrysostom in speaking of the results attendant upon the 
sacrifice of our Passover Lamb, Christ the Lord, declares, 
without using directly the word, that the earth, and the air, 
and the sky were thereby baptized. No one, who remem- 
bers by what varied terms and descriptions the Patrists set 
forth baptism, will hesitate to acknowledge a baptism as 
taught, (though the word should not appear,) merely on the 
ground of the absence of that word. That a baptism is here 
designed is shown, 1. By the baptizing power attributed to 
the person of Christ. 2. By the pre-eminent power attributed 
to his shed blood. 3. By the sameness of phraseology em- 
ployed, as when avowedly describing a baptism. 4. By the 
express use of the word "baptism" by other writers in con- 



220 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

nection with this transaction. 5. By the baptism ascribed 
to the repentant thief. 

The propriety of attributing a baptism to the earth, air, 
and sky, by the crucifixion of Christ, on the summit of Cal- 
vary, beneath the heavens, and with his blood dropping upon 
the earth, is found in the claim, that their condition was 
thoroughly changed thereby. 

Chrysostom tells us, that before this great transaction the 
world at large was impure and unfit for divine worship, 
Judea and the temple only being sanctified to this end; but 
by the death of Christ outside of the city, " lifted up with 
no covering roof, the whole earth became sanctified;" so 
that men could "lift up holy hands, acceptable to God, 
everywhere." He expounds his "lifting up" upon the cross 
as designed "to purify the nature of the air," therefore, ef- 
fectually to change its condition. So, of the overhanging 
heavens, "purified." 

As to the competency of a few drops of blood from the 
pierced side of the Son of God " to baptize" this whole earth, 
no one who reads the Patrists can have airy doubt that they 
believed in such efficacy, or that they could consistently em- 
ploy such language. 

The justification of such usage is found in the true nature 
of panTiZa), which they well understood, and use in this case, 
as might be expected, with the utmost propriety. 

It is but a short time since the friends of the theory ridi- 
culed a bapting by a few blood-drops. They have learned 
better; and now admit that a few drops (to express it pre- 
cisely in English as in Greek) can dip. Hippocrates says, 
^E-etdav liziaxazri fadTia pdnTszat. " When it drops upon the gar- 
ments they are dipped (dyed)." 

Chrysostom uses the same verb and the same preposition 
to express the dropping blood from the Redeemer's side, by 
which he says the world was baptized, changed as to its con- 
dition, being purified and sanctified universally to the service 
and worship of God. 

Theorists now believe that the Father of Medicine wrote 
good Greek when he said "coloring drops can dip (dye)." 



BAPTISM OF THE PENITENT THIEF. 221 

"We wait for their confession that "the Golden Mouth" 
understood Greek as well, when he claims the purging of the 
world, by blood-drops from the cross, to be a baptism. 

BAPTISM OF THE PENITENT THIEF. 

The baptism of the penitent thief is another exemplifica- 
tion of the truth of the principles relied upon for the inter- 
pretation of baptisms. 

In it there is neither "dipping" nor "covering," any more 
than in the baptism of " the earth, and air, and sky." Nor 
are there even a few drops of blood which hyperbole might 
magnify into a pool; for those blood-drops upon him are 
not of "a witness" for Christ, but witnesses of his guilt as 
a thief. Nor do "those two baptisms shed forth from the 
Saviour's side," of which Tertullian speaks, reach his firmly 
nailed body. IIow then, was he baptized? Chrysostom 
and Cyril both answer by " the baptism of confession." This 
baptism was grounded in the Saviour's declaration — " He 
that confesseth me before men, him will I confess before my 
Father in heaven." Hence the " power " of confession became 
a subject for eulogy. The former of these two writers says, 
that the thief "purified himself from the pollutions of sin 
by confession" He declares that "the strength of confession 
is great and has great power." "He confessed, and behold 
he found Paradise opened." 

How entirely removed is the conception of these writers 
and their associates as to the nature of a baptism, from that 
presented by the theory, is manifest from their speaking of 
"confession," and "blood," and "water" as possessed of 
"power" and therefore competent to baptize. There is not 
a syllable which likens them to pools, floods, or torrents. No 
such elements of thought are introduced by them into the 
explanation of these baptisms. This antagonism of view 
between the modern theory and these Greeks is, alone, suf- 
ficient to convict of error, unless, indeed, these ancient 
worthies also, are to be "sent to school." Such course, in 
this case, might prove dangerous, for Chrysostom has the 
credit of having overmastered his master, (the most cele- 



222 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

brated of his day,) while yet in his teens. That measuring- 
rod at Tubbermore which we are told is applied, as a matter 
of conscience, to the talents of every opposer of the theory 
might prove too short. 

The "baptisma confessionis" without dipping; without 
"pouring long enough to cover;" without "washing, which 
may be by bathing and therefore by immersion ;" without 
a cleansing of the feet, "which may be done by patting them 
into it, which is an immersion as far' as it goes /"without an 
ark or a fishing-boat, which might then " dimly shadow forth 
a burial and a resurrection;" without any element of deep 
emotion, which then might be converted into " an overflow- 
ing torrent;" without mental solicitude, which then might 
be made "a burden to sink in deep waters;" without any 
help whereby a figure or a picture can be wrought out, this 
"baptisma confessionis" cannot but be a stumbling-block 
to the theory. " Confession," through the influence of blood- 
drops from the cross, baptizes the penitent sinner and fits 
him for Paradise ! 



BAPTISMS OP FIKE. 
BAPTISM BY THE FLAMING SWORD. 

Genesis 3 : 24. 

" So he drove out the man : And he placed at the east of the 
garden of Eden, cherubims and a flaming sword, which turned 
every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." 

Interpretation, 

"Non unura est baptisma: unum est quod hie tradit Ecclesia, 
per aquam et Spiritum Sanctum quo necesse est baptizari cate- 
chumenos. Est et aliud baptisma, de quo dicit Dominus Jesus : 
' Baptisma habeo baptizari, quod nos nescitis,' (Luke 12 : 10.) Et 
utique jam baptizatus in Jordane fuerat, sicut superiora de- 
clarant; sed sit hoc baptismum passionis, quo etiam sanguine suo 
unusquisque mundatur. 

"Est etiam baptismum in paradisi vestibulo, quod antea non 



BAPTISM BY FIRE. 223 

erat: sed posteaquam peccator exclusus est, coepit esseromphaea 
ignea, quam posuit Deus, qua? antea non erat, quando peccatum 
non erat. 

" Culpa ccepit, et baptismum coepit : quo purificentur, qui in 
paradisum redire cupiebant, ut regressi dicerent : ' Transivimus 
per ignem et aquam/ (Ps. 66 : 12.) Hie per aquam, illic per 
ignem. Per aquam, ut abluantur peccata : per ignem ut exu- 
rantur. ... 

" Qui8 est qui in hoc igne baptizat? . . . Ille de quo Johannes 
ait : ' Ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu sancto et igne/ . . . Veniet 
ergo Baptista Magnus, sic enim eum nomino quomodo nominavit 
Gabriel dicens, (Luc. 1 : 32,) 'Hie erit Magnus/ videbit multos 
ante paradisi stantes vestibulum, movebit romphseam versati- 
lem, dicet iis qui a dextris sunt, non habentibus gravia peccata: 
'Intrate qui prsesumitis, qui ignem non timetis.' . . . Intrate in 
requiem meam; ut unusquisque nostrum ustus romphcea ilia 
flammea, non exustus, introgressus in illam paradisi ameeni- 
tatem, gratias agat Domino suo, dicens: 'Induxisti nos in re- 
frigerium/ " (Ps. 66 : 12.) 

" Baptism is not one: that is one kind which the Church gives 
by water and the Holy Spirit, wherewith it is necessary that 
catechumens be baptized. 

"And that is another Baptism, of which the Lord Jesus says: 
' 1 have a baptism to be baptized with, which ye know not/ 
(Luke 12 : 10.) And as he had already been baptized in Jordan, 
as previously stated, this must be the Baptism of Passion by 
which, through his blood, every one of us must be cleansed. 

" There is, also, a baptism at the entrance of Paradise which 
formerly did not exist; but after the transgressor was excluded, 
the naming sword began to be, which God established, which 
was not, before, when sin was not. Sin began and baptism 
began; by which they might be purified who desired to return, 
that having returned they might say: ' We have passed over by 
fire and water/ (Ps. 66: 12.) Here by water, there by fire. By 
water, that sins may be washed away; by fire, that they may be 
consumed. . . . 

" Who is it that baptizes by this fire? ... He of whom John 
says, 'He shall baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.' . . . 
Then shall come the Great Baptizer, (for so I call him as Gabriel 
called him, saying, (Luke 1:32,) 'He shall be Great,') he will 



224 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

see many standing before the entrance of Paradise, he will wave 
the sword turning every way. He will say to those on the right 
hand, not having weighty sins, 'Enter ye, who are of good 
courage, who fear not the fire.' . . . 

"Enter into my kingdom: So every one of us burned (puri- 
fied) by that sword, not consumed, having entered into the 
delights of Paradise, may give thanks to his Lord, saying, (Ps. 
66:12,) 'Thou hast brought us into rest,'" — Ambrose, ii, 1227, 
1228. 

" Statuit igneam romphoeam, et cherubim custodire viam ligni 
vitae. . . . Audi Salvatorem ratione ignis et ferri in duobus locis 
significantem. In alio loco ait : l Non veni mittere pacem super 
terram, sed gladium.' In alio vero : ' Ignem veni mittere super ter- 
ram, et utinam jam ardeat.' Igitur defert utrumque Salvator, gla- 
dium et ignem, et baptizat qu^e non potuerunt Spiritus Sancti 
purification e purgari." 

" He places a flaming sword and cherubim to guard the way 
of the tree of life. And as if a sword, sharp and hot, be struck 
against the body, it causes double pain, of burning and of cut- 
ting, so, also, the sword which is mentioned as placed as a guard 
of Paradise, produces double torment, it burns and it cuts. Stu- 
dents of the medical art say that some diseases require not only 
the cutting of the knife, but, also, burning. Cancers require 
that the putrid flesh shall be cut out and their roots burned. 
Dost thou think that our cancer, as I may call it, has a like 
viciousness, so that neither the mere sharpness of the knife nor 
the mere burning of fire can suffice, but both must be applied, 
that it may be both burned and cut ? Hear the Saviour show- 
ing the use of fire and knife, in two passages : In one place he 
says : ' I have not come to send peace on the earth but a sioord. 1 But 
in another place he says: 'I have come to send fire upon the 
earth, and I wish it were already kindled.' Therefore the 
Saviour brings both, sword and fire, and baptizes those things 
which could not be purged by the purification of the Holy 
Spirit." — Origen (translated by Jerome), iii, 704. 

lb de 7t(bq kizaviXdrji; dq tov Tiapadsiaov, [irj acppayiffOsiq tw ^ out id part) 
V H obx oldag, ore yXoyiyq pop<paia riraxrai (pukdaaeiv -nyv cdov rou k~ulou 
£(07jq; 

" But how canst thou come back again into Paradise, not 
being sealed by baptism ? Dost thou not know that the flam- 



BAPTISM BY FIRE. 225 

ing sword has been set to guard the way of the tree of life, to 
the unbelieving terrible and consuming, but, to the believing, 
easy of approach, and pleasantly shining?" — Basil, iii, 428. 

AMBROSE. 

The exposition, by Ambrose, of the import of baptism in 
general, and as bearing on this passage in particular, is very 
explicit, and very far removed from the Baptist conception 
of what is essential to a baptism. 

" Baptism is not one." In absolute contradiction of the 
assertion of this eminent writer, the theory declares that 
baptism is one. When the theorists take this position, they 
mean to say that baptism is a fixed quantity. Some say that 
the "quantity " consists in the form of an act, in the most 
marvellous disregard of facts. Others say the form of the 
act may vary, but a covering of the object must not vary. 
It is farther affirmed that this unity is such an absolute ne- 
cessity, that in application to things not physical, and where 
neither form of act nor covering can exist, in fact, yet there 
must be a creation, by the force of imagination, of the one 
or the other, according as this or that class of theorists may 
attempt to defend the case. Water, wine, oil, milk, blood, 
marsh mud, the receiving elements, may vary; but the bap- 
tism, the dipping or the covering, cannot vary. Baptism is 
one. " It is mode, and nothing but mode." 

If the idea of baptism is exhausted by the performance of 
a modal act, then no argument is needed to prove that " bap- 
tism is one." It is a self-evident proposition. Or, if the idea 
of baptism consists in a modal covering, departure from which 
is as destructive as the dashing of a crystal vase against a 
flinty rock, then argument is at an end, and " baptism is 
one." I say nothing, now, about the difficulty which these 
parties to the unity have among themselves in determining 
what the unit is; it is enough, at present, to turn the case 
over to Ambrose, who says: "Baptism is not one." But if 
it be "not one," then it is not a modal act, for that, as the 
theory claims, must ever be "one;" nor is it a modal cover- 
ing, for that, too, as the theory claims, must ever be "one." 

15 



226 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

Whatever baptism may be, if Ambrose's decision is worth 
anything, this Janus-faced theory is worth nothing. 

Lest £iny one should have doubts as to the extent of the 
repudiation of this "oneness," I would call to mind a pre- 
vious declaration by this same writer: " Multa sunt genera 
baptismatum." The theory refuses to give baptism the 
dignity of a species. It cuts it down to a severe individualism. 
It is like nothing but itself; and when it becomes like any- 
thing else, it ceases to be itself. " It is dip, and nothing kit dip, 
through all Greek literature." Now, Ambrose not merely 
rejects the notion that baptism is a thing simple and indivis- 
ible, always and everywhere the same, but he refuses to 
accept the broader idea of species with its individual peculi- 
arities; he will not allow even the limitation which belongs 
to genus and its varying species; he insists that the " baptis- 
mata " rise up to the elevation of a class, and that, too, of 
such a breadth as to include " multa genera." 

Were ever opposing views more thoroughly, more broadly, 
and more universally contradictory than those of the theor- 
ists, and this Patrist, as to the nature of baptism? 

We have had already enough of facts before us to show 
which now is right. We have seen that " genus" of bap- 
tisms, which pertains to physics, including various differen- 
tial species, such as stones, metals, coasts, uninfluenced by 
baptism ; a bag of salt, a ship, a human being, influenced by 
baptism ; and we have seen that " genus " of baptisms, taking 
in the intellect, and exhibited in varying " species," such as 
drunkenness, somnolence, feeble-mindedness, &c, &c. And 
yet another "genus," embracing the religious element, is now 
passing before us, revealing its varied "species " of ceremonial 
purifications, with all the varieties of sprinklings (water, blood, 
ashes), and of loashings (body, feet, hands) ; and of spiritual pu- 
rifications, mediate (water imbued with divine power, martyr 
blood, flaming sword), and immediate, (Holy Spirit.) 

These are only some of the "Multa genera baptismatum" 
which make up that wide " Class," characterized by thorough 
change of condition. They are sufficient to sustain the position, 
"Baptism is not one," and to show that its contradictory 



BAPTISM BY FIRE. 227 

"Baptism is one," is a position neither proven nor prova- 
ble. Classic Baptism is right when it says, "Baptism is a 
myriad-sided word." 

"Baptism by water and the Holy Spirit." Ambrose pro- 
ceeds to cite some particular kinds of baptism, in order to 
sustain his assertion that "Baptism is not one." I do not 
enter into a discussion of this baptism. It is not within my 
present plan so to do. I only observe, as to its distinctive 
character: 1. It does not belong to the class of mere symbol 
baptisms; it effects a spiritual purification. 2. Whatever 
may have been the manner of using the water, its position 
in the baptism is that of agency. The "power" to effect the 
baptism is with the water. It is not a recipient element. 
This is the Patristic view. 

" Baptisma passionis." The baptism of passion, or of cruci- 
fixiou, experienced by our adorable Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ, is declared by Ambrose to be another kind of bap- 
tism from that just mentioned, namely, Baptism by water 
and the Holy Spirit. We have thus specific examples fur- 
nished to illustrate the general statement, "Baptism is not 
one." What, now, is the unity, or what are the unities, 
which make both baptisms; and what the diversity or diver- 
sities which make them baptisms not of the same kind ? 

1. As to the forms of act. In the one case, it is applying 
water to the body in varying forms, and "the operation" of 
the Holy Spirit on the soul; in the other case, it is striking 
with a hammer and thrusting with a spear. 2. As to the agen- 
cies. In the former case it is water impregnated with a di- 
vine power, in the latter case it is the agonies of the cross. 
3. As to the results. In the first case there is a wetting: of the 
body and (supposedly) a purification of the soul; in the last 
case there is a penal death, " the just for the unjust." There 
is no unity in the forms of the act. none in the nature of the 
agency, none in the characters of the result. There is neither 
a dipping nor a covering to be found whereby they can be 
interlinked. Why then have they the common name of bap- 
tism ? I answer, because a baptism is never dependent upon 
any specific form of action, upon any specific nature in the 



228 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

instrumentality, or upon any specific character in the result; 
but is the production of any act, or of any agency, which is 
capable of thoroughly changing the condition of its object. 
Friends and rejecters of the dipping theory will alike ad- 
mit, that the sinner baptized with water impregnated with 
divine influence, had (according to the Patristic faith) there- 
by his moral condition thoroughly changed. And all will, 
equally, acknowledge that the " baptism of passion " thor- 
oughly changed the condition of the Sufferer in his relations 
to the law, having forever satisfied its claims; and his rela- 
tions to his people, being now and thus, now in fact, thus 
"from the foundation of the world," the slain Lamb of God, 
able to take away their sins; as well as his own personal 
condition, changing his condition of life into a condition of 
death, on which changed condition all else hung suspended. 
By the power of this central truth, we fling oft' those alien 
elements, " dipping" and " covering," while we bring into 
order and harmony all those multiplied diversities which 
enter into the "multa genera baptismatum." 

The theory has ever stumbled at the unity and charity in- 
culcated by the cross, and has thus been deservedly " broken ;" 
the baptism of the cross now falls upon it, and it is "ground 
to powder." And so perish, speedily, all error which sepa- 
rates the people of God ! 

Before leaving this case of baptism, I would call attention 
to the form and force of the phrase "Baptisma passionis." 
What is the grammatical and logical relation between these 
two words ? Very few, perhaps none, will differ in their 
answer to this question. For that very reason it is desirable 
to raise it now, as we shall meet with it hereafter, when out- 
side influences may cause more embarrassment in its deter- 
mination. 

The only point to be settled, is the character of the geni- 
tive. Is it subjective or objective f Is the baptism produced 
by "passion," as its source, or has baptism "passion" for 
its end ? If there should be any hesitancy in answering this 
inquiry, aid may, perhaps, be found in referring to a similar 
phrase, which has already been before us: "Baptisma con- 



BAPTISM BY THE FLAMING SWORD. 229 

fessionis." None, I presume, will regard "confession" as 
the end of Martyr baptism; but all will say, Martyrdom pro- 
ceeds from " confession." In other words, the case is a geni- 
tive subjective, and not objective. The similar phrase, " Bap- 
tisma passionis," should, unquestionably, be determined in 
the same manner. The atoning sorrows of the blessed Re- 
deemer on the cross, were the source whence his baptism 
came, not the end to which it tended. " Passion " baptized 
the atoning Redeemer into death. 

I pass over this amazing baptism, now, as lightly as its 
presentation by Ambrose will allow. Its consideration will 
demand a most central position when we come to speak of 
Christian Baptism. 

Baptism of the Flaming Sword. — A third baptism, differing 
from the other two, is adduced to sustain the same general 
position, "Baptism is not one." This is a baptism which 
takes place at the gates of Paradise. 

When Aaron was baptized by Moses at the door of the 
congregation, Dr. Carson insisted that it must be by im- 
mersion. If Ambrose had merely said : " There is, also, a 
baptism at the entrance of Paradise," or, if those words only 
had come down to us without auy explanation as to the quo 
modo of the baptism, this thrice honest believer in dipping 
w T ould have gone to the stake sooner than he would have 
admitted, that there was or could be any other than a dip- 
ping baptism. He would have asked, in triumph, "Is there 
not a liver flowing in the Paradise of God ? And if one 
be not enough, where are the Pison, and the Gihon, and 
the Hiddekel, and the Euphrates?" Fortunately, however, 
more has been told us concerning it; and it appears that 
there was no dipping, no covering, no water, in the transac- 
tion. The baptism was by a "Flaming Sword." 

Had the statement been merely, that the baptism was 
by tire, all that entered Paradise would have been very 
promptly dipped into the fire; but, alas ! the statement is 
"a fiery sword;" and how shall the seekers of Paradise be 
dipped into a sword? I am sure I cannot tell; but I am 
just as sure that the theory will cut out, to order, an ex- 



230 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

planation so plain that "any child can see it;" and if, per- 
chance, any man should fail to do so, it must be because "he 
has no soul for rhetoric." Perhaps the device will be, that 
the strokes of the sword, descending and ascending, (like 
the flooding and the ebbing tide,) shall " beautifully repre- 
sent a dipping ;" while in "turning every way," its strokes 
come down before, behind, right, left, above, betoken a 
rushing torrent and a covering flood; and what could be 
more plain than that, (as the sword is the image of death, 
and burial is involved in death, while entering Paradise is 
proof of a resurrection,) we have "death, burial, and resur- 
rection" as well as a dipping and a covering? "Who will 
not justify the theorist in saying, (while standing at the gates 
of Paradise with the whole truth of baptism made luminous 
by " the Flaming Sword,") that he who will not accept its 
strokes for " dipping," its flashes for " covering," its emblem- 
atic character for "death and burial," and the Paradise it 
guards for "resurrection," "compels our charity to struggle 
against the conviction which forces itself upon us, that upon 
this subject it is not light that is most wanted, but religious 
honesty" (Carson, xxxvii.) 

Some may hesitate to receive these fruits of a warm imagi- 
nation because they leave out of view the baptism of Am- 
brose — the eradication of sin which prepares for entrance 
through the gate into Paradise; and because they have failed 
to show how the "dippings" of a swordblacle would fit for 
the kingdom of heaven ; to do which thing this baptism was 
Patristically got up. 

Others may object, that the exposition does not tally with 
the illustration given by Origen of the cancer, with the kuife 
and the cautery burning its roots. This suits well with the 
idea of a baptism which effectually purifies the soul; but not 
so well with a water dipping or with a flood covering. All 
this may be true; but then, Ambrose and Origen may not 
know what a baptism is, (not having yet gone to school at 
Tubbermore;) or, they may not have known what sort of 
baptism they had in their own minds, and so may have 
blundered in its explication. At any rate there is so much 



BAPTISM BY THE FLAMING SWORD. 231 

of simplicity and good sense in the death, burial, and resur- 
rection of Noah in the ark, of Israel in the driecl-up sea, and 
of the Apostles in the sound like wind, that we can feel little 
disposition to yield anything to these Patrists, as against 
death, burial, and resurrection in the Flaming Sword! 

In any case, however, there is much to justify the state- 
ment, that as a baptism it is not quite like either of the other 
two. And it is hard to resist the conclusion, that the theory 
is certainly scorched, if not burned up, by contact with the 
Flaming Sword. 

I need hardly say, that inasmuch as the Patrists attribute 
to the sword, in its cutting character and in its fiery element, 
a doubly purifying power, fully competent under divine con- 
trol to accomplish its mission — thoroughly to change the 
condition of those seeking admission into Paradise — it meets, 
in the most perfect manner, that which we claim to be the 
true and only essential characteristic of a baptism. 

" The Great Baptizer." 

Not the least important part of this interpretation relates 
to the baptizer at the gates of Paradise. This is of so much 
importance that Ambrose, himself, raises the question : 
"Who is it that baptizes by this fire?" And he gives the 
answer: "He of whom John said, 'He shall baptize by the 
Holy Ghost and by fire.' " To this person is given the title of 
"the Great Baptizer." Now the question arises, Why w T as 
the Lord Jesus Christ called " the Great Baptizer?" We pro- 
pound this question to the theorists and await their answer. 

Is it replied by some one more zealous than thoughtful, 
"You must not obscure the truth by using untranslated 
w T ords. He is called < the Great Dipper J because he dipped 
so many into the water." To such speech enough of his 
dipping friends will say : " Don't speak so fast; you blunder; 
Christ never dipped into water." He might, however, re- 
spond : " I thought that baptize always meant to dip, and if 
he is 'the Great Dipper' and did not dip into water, what 
did he dip into ?" "Well, perhaps it means, He dipped into 
the Holy Ghost and into fire." Here let me interpose a word 



232 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

and say, 1. This latter baptism cannot now be discussed on 
its merits, because out of place. 2. The answer, as to the 
reason of this title, must be such as will meet the views of 
him who gives the title, not of him who undertakes to ex- 
pound it. Aud the reason assigned will not answer; for 
Ambrose no more believed that the Lord Jesus dipped men 
into the Holy Ghost and into fire, than he believed that he 
dipped them into water. It is no sentiment of the Patrists, 
that the Holy Ghost is a receiving element into which men 
are to be dipped whether literally or figuratively; on the con- 
trary, He is always represented as an agent operating on the 
soul and so baptizing it. It is the purest absurdity to attribute 
to Ambrose the giving of a title grounded on the abundant 
doing of that wmich he did not believe was ever done at all. 
And as for " dipping into fire/' it may be observed, 1. The 
use of the preposition in by no means determines any such 
idea ; for it is most freely used in Patristic writings with the 
instrument. 2. The instrument is used subsequently with- 
out any preposition. 3. The fire, here, was not of a nature 
to allow of a dipping into it. 4. It is expressly stated that 
the act accomplishing the baptism was not a dipping into the 
flaming sword, but by waving it. Let it be remembered, 
that we are interpreting an expression not of somebody else 
taken up by Ambrose, and which has a value extrinsic to 
him, but an expression which originates with himself; and 
which, consequently, must be interpreted by his own senti- 
ments as bearing upon it. And in view of them we say, 
the title " Great Dipper" never originated from any notion 
that the Lord Jesus clipped into fire. But supposing that 
there was such a phrase as "dipping into the Holy Ghost," 
which there is not, and " dipping into fire," which there is 
not, still every one not demented must admit that there is, in 
fact, no dipping in such expressions. Here, then, arises the 
question, How could the title of a "Dipper" be taken out of 
phrases in which no dipping exists, in fact, to be conferred 
on one who never dips ? Is not the whole thing, (as is usual 
with such explanations under the theory,) full, from first to 
last, of conceptions untenable and unreasonable? 



BAPTISM BY THE FLAMING SWORD. 233 

But this title, "the Great Baptizer," given by Ambrose 
to the Lord Jesus Christ means something, nay, must mean 
very much. What is it? If some votary of the wine cup 
were to call Bacchus "the Great Baptizer," would not the 
interpretation "Great Dipper" be regarded as a great joke? 
And would not " Great coverer over" prove them tipsy who 
gave such title ? Could it mean anything else, in such rela- 
tion, than "the Great drunkard maker?" Would not every 
native-born Greek so understand it? 

But what this title means as applied to the Lord Jesus 
Christ, (now given for the first time and, so far as I remem- 
ber, never employed but on this occasion,) we must learn 
from the character of him who bears it, and from the cir- 
cumstances and tenor of the context out of which it origi- 
nates. It would be most irrational to suppose otherwise, 
as it would be irrational to introduce iuto the text, to con- 
trol the interpretation, any other element than that which 
is already there. Neither water nor wine, not water any 
more than wine, has any place in the interpretation. * 

What is the ruling thought of the passage? Is it not 
purification ? Is not purification inseparable from Paradise ? 
Is not " the flaming sword" placed at the gateway to prevent 
the introduction of impurity? Is not "the sword and the fire" 
represented as possessed of purifying power ? Are not souls 
represented as seeking to enter Paradise, and yet " with 
some lighter sins" which still require purification? Is not 
the Lord Jesus, here and everywhere in connection with 
baptism, represented as a Purifier? Does he not take the 
flaming sword for the purpose of purifying completely, those 
"on his right hand?" Does he not do it, and in so doing, 
give them welcome into that Paradise within which " nothing 
that defileth" can enter? And is he not, in view of all this, 
and because of all this, called " the Great Baptizer?" The 
interpretation, I repeat, must be gathered from the passage. 
In that passage there is not the remotest hint of a dipping 
or a covering; and to introduce them as expounding ele- 
ments is " a folly to be punished by the judges." It might 
as well be said, that nobility and a title taken from the field 



234 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

of battle and conferred upon a victorious soldier, must be 
expounded by reasons sought in the four corners of the 
earth and not in that hardfought field — its prisoners taken, 
its cannon captured, opposing standards stricken down — 
as to say that the title given by Ambrose, in view of the 
great work accomplished on earth and at the gates of Para- 
dise, was not to be expounded by that work. Thus ex- 
pounded, "the Great Baptizer" can mean nothing but "the 
Great Purifier," and we offer it to Dr. Carson as an addi- 
tional case where it cannot mean the Great Dipper ! 

I say Dipper and not Immerser, because I enter an impera- 
tive denial of the right of any under the dipping theory to 
make use of immerse or of any of its derivatives, so long as 
they identify dip and ^a-ri^io. When they reject this error 
we will cheerfully give them the benefit of it, and will hold 
them to other responsibilities. 

In the meanwhile we must affirm, that the two words, dip 
and immerse, differ essentially. Their power differs widely, 
deeply, universally; their relations to words and thoughts 
differ; their development, from primary thought, exhibits 
the same continued and magnified difference. If these state- 
ments are not true, let their error be shown. If they are 
not disproved, is it rational to suppose that, in a discussion 
turning on these differences, these terms can be allowed to 
be tossed about, at will, as may suit the pleasure or ends of 
one of the parties? If the friends of the theory have grown 
distrustful of dip, and think that immerse can do them more 
valiant service, let them frankly confess their change of 
ground, and stick to it with all its consequences, and no one 
will impose upon them their once trusted, but, at length, 
discarded favorite. But until this is done, we cannot allow 
a white horse and a black horse to be imposed upon us as 
matches. 

0RIGEN. 

What does the Great Baptizer baptize ? 

When the theorists have been hard pressed with the evi- 
dence against the dippings of the priests in Judaic baptisms, 



BAPTISM BY THE FLAMING SWORD. 235 

they have answered: "Parts of the sacrificial victims, or the 
utensils, may have been dipped, and such dippings would 
account for its being said that there were baptisms in the 
temple service." Dr. Halley says that he is not satisfied 
with the fitness of this answer, but as he cannot disprove 
the existence of such dippings, or demonstrate their incon- 
gruity with the baptisms designed, he will not press the 
argument. 

This attempt to save the theory in the face of condemning 
facts, by the supposition of some rhetorical speech, or extra- 
ordinary figure, or some possible fact, is characteristic of the 
believers in "dipping, and nothing but dipping." Every 
one who gives attention to the subject will, at once, be aware 
what facilities are at hand, by large drafts on rhetoric, figure, 
imagination, and the rich storehouse of possibilities, for 
throwing back a secondary meaning on the primary, by one 
who is disposed, at all hazards, to reject a secondary sense. 
To demonstrate the impossibility of the primary sense against 
all these, lawful and unlawful modifying and coloring ap- 
pliances, so as to compel the assent of a determined and 
thoroughly committed opponent, is a difficult if not imprac- 
ticable task. The theorists take this double position: 1. No 
second meaning to PamiCw } dip and nothing but dip. 2. No 
surrender, except to blank impossibility of such meaning, 
after the exhaustion of all conceivable opposing appliances. 

A rule in itself may not be an improper one, but the inter- 
pretation of evidence under it may be very exceptionable. 
Dr. Carson, who lays clown this law for the opponents of 
the theory, refuses to govern his own action by the inter- 
pretation of the law which he would bind on others. In 
adducing evidence for a secondary meaning to /Sa-ro> ? there 
is not a case brought forward in proof, which could endure 
a single stroke from the machinery which he gets up to batter 
down, or undermine, or overtop, or circumvent, or blow up, 
whatever sustains a secondary meaning of pax-i^io. 

I make no protest against the rule; but I do protest against 
an insane judgment of the rule, or of evidence under the rule. 

Proof, to the full of all rational requirement, under the 



236 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

rule has already been repeatedly presented. We have such 
testimony renewed ly furnished by the extract from Origen, 
and which I now present : "Igitur defert utrumque Salvator, 
gladium et ignem, et baptizat qum non potuerunt Spiritus 
Sancti purification e purgari." — " Therefore, the Saviour 
brings forth both the sword and the fire, and baptizes what 
(defilements, faults, sins) could not be purged by the purifica- 
tion of the Holy Spirit." 

The argument from this passage is: 1. "The purification 
of the Holy Spirit " is, in Patristic conception, baptism by 
water impregnated with the quality of the Holy Spirit ; and 
the object of this baptism, as stated, is to baptize the pol- 
lutions of the soul; therefore baptize cannot mean to dip, 
because "pollutions" cannot be dipped. But, no doubt, this 
argument, though clear as the sun, will be " puffed at," on 
the ground of the use of the phrase "purification of the 
Holy Spirit," being used instead of the word baptize. Well, 
then, as I do not believe in charging people with " wanting 
Christian honesty more than wanting light," (though they may 
appear to me to be madly set upon a theory,) we will pass 
out of the light of one sun into the light of seven suns. 

2. Origen, through his translator Jerome, both of unim- 
peachable authority, gives us in the former part of the sen- 
tence, totidem Uteris, the very word — baptizat. The objection, 
then, on the ground of the absence of the word, is at an end. 
Now, as to the meaning in which the word is used. What 
was baptized? Priests, Levites, disciples? No. "Shoulders, 
breasts, legs of sacrificial victims ?" No. "Basins, pots, uten- 
sils of any kind?" No. What then? Defilements, faults, sins, 
"which could not be purged by the purification by the Holy 
Spirit." Now test the primary meaning attributed to ,?<*—£'!>, 
(to dip,) by the case, and we have : " Therefore the Saviour 
brings forth both sword and fire, and dips what (defilements, 
faults, sins) could not be purged by the purification of the 
Holy Spirit." 

Is it a possibility, or an impossibility, to dip " defilements, 
faults, and sins?" Is it a possibility, or an impossibility, to 
dip such things by " sword and lire?" 



BAPTISM BY THE FLAMING SWORD. 237 

If any friend of the theory in Europe, Asia, Africa, or 
America, (whom a jury under a writ de lunatico shall pro- 
nounce sane), will declare that it is possible " to dip defile- 
ments, faults, and sins," then I will give up the case, and 
pray that a like writ be taken out for myself; for if such a 
one be not demented, I must be. The passage furnishes 
an experimentum cmcis for the theory. If Origen (the most 
learned and the most voluminous Greek writer of his day,) 
understood Greek; if Jerome (thoroughly taught in the 
Greek Classics before he became a Christian,) understood 
Greek; if these most learned men had any just understanding 
of what they themselves wrote; then, the theory is brought 
face to face with a case of usage in which the meaning "to 
dip," is an absolute impossibility. 

That the force of this evidence may be felt, if possible, 
yet more deeply, I will quote an analogous case adduced by 
President Ilalley, (Sacraments, i, 454,) as the highest possible 
proof to determine a secondary meaning for panto*. 

" Although Dr. Carson has said enough to satisfy his 
brethren that (idnra* has to dye as a secondary meaning, he 
has not, I think, produced the most decisive evidence which 
the idiom of the language supplies. The best proof of a com- 
plete change of the meaning, is a corresponding change of the syn- 
tax accommodating itself to the deflection of sense. ... In the 
phrases to dip the wool, and to stain the wool, the syntax is 
the same. But if the syntax is so varied as to make not the 
thing colored, but the color itself the object of the verb, — as 
when we say to dye a purple, — the secondary sense has then 
renounced all dependence upon the primary, and established 
itself by a new law of syntax, enacted by usage to secure its 
undisturbed possession. . . . This is illustrated by the pas- 
sage lav ri res aXXa yjiwiiara fid-rrj, hh xi xdl rauTa. ' Whether any 
one dye other colors or these also.' Here zptina has gained 
in the syntax the place of the material subjected to the pro- 
cess; and therefore pleads a law of language that pditru* in 
the passage does not, and cannot mean to dip, as the color 
cannot be clipped, whatever may be done with the wool. 
Another case is found in Lucian (Cynic, p. 1106), olrijvxop. 



238 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

<pbpav (3d7zrovT£<;, < those dyeing the purple.' This syntax I bold 
to be demonstrative of a secondary meaning." 

Professor Wilson, Royal College, Belfast, speaking of this 
principle and its value as testimony to a secondary mean- 
ing, says : " That fidx-no denotes to dye, without regard to 
mode, and even where immersion is in terms excluded, the 
preceding examples place beyond the pale of candid dispu- 
tation. There remains, however, an additional element of 
proof, which, if not more convincing in its nature, is at least 
calculated to afford higher gratification to the mind of the 
true philologist. "We allude to the interesting fact, that the 
secondary meaning, instead of hanging loosely on the out- 
skirts of clauses and sentences, has seized upon their most 
intimate connections, and entered deeply into the structural 
fabric of the Greek language. As Dr. Halley, so far as we 
are aware, was the first to direct public attention to the ex- 
istence and value of this branch of evidence, we shall present 
in his own words the statement and illustration of its char- 
acter." 

We have here the testimony of two most competent wit- 
nesses to the principle, that a radical change in the syntax 
is the highest proof of a radical change in the meaning of 
the word. This principle was not enunciated to meet a 
controversial exigency. The Baptists had already accepted 
a secondary meaning to pa-ra). It may, therefore, be re- 
ceived without suspicion, and acknowledged as a universal 
principle ingrained in the elements of language. 

We can say, dip wool, but we cannot say, dip purple, and 
use the verb in the same sense in both cases; for " purple" 
is of such a nature as to be insusceptible of the action of 
which " wool" is the object. The syntax, therefore, is proof 
of a change of meaning. Wool may be dipped; purple can, 
only, be dyed. 

So we may say, dip (supposing this to be, as claimed, the 
meaning of panTi'vi) the sinner; but we cannot sa} T , dip the 
sin, and use the word in the same sense, because "sin," by 
its nature, does not admit of being dipped. But Origen does 
say that the Lord Jesus dips (baptizes) sins, (represented 



BAPTISM BY A COAL OF FIRE. 239 

in "quae"); it follows, therefore, by a necessity of the laws 
of language, that he uses the verb in such case with a sec- 
ondary meaning. Sins may he purged ; they cannot be dip- 
ped. If proof needed to be heaped on proof, it would be 
found in the means used for this dipping by the Great Bap- 
tizer; " sword and tire" can no more dip, than " sins" can be 
dipped by them. " Sword and fire" can purge; sins can be 
purged; the Great Baptizer does purge; and Pam&io means 

TO PURGE. 

The theory perishes by the Flaming Sword in the hands 
of the True as well as " the Great Baptist." 



BAPTISM BY A COAL OF PIKE. 
Isaiah 6 : 5-7. 

"Then said I, Woe is me ! for I am undone; because I am a 
man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of un- 
clean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. 

"Then flew one of the Seraphim unto me, having a live coal 
in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the 
altar : 

"And he laid it upon my mouth and said, Lo, this hath 
touched thy lips ; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin 
is purged." 

Interpretation. 

"Lege mandata Legis, et invenies scriptum : Quia vivens si 
mortuum contigerit, inquinatur (Numb. 19 : 11). . . . Indigemus 
ergo purgatione, quia tetigimus mortuos (Numb. 19 : 1). . . . 
Omnes contigimus mortuum. Quis enim gloriabitur castum se 
habere cor, aut quis audebit dicere mundum se a peccatis ? Sit 
aliquis fortassc qui in sermone non deliquerit .... tamen in 
medio peccatorum versatur, neccsse habet etiam ipse purificari. 
Unde Esaias, cum dixisset (6 : 5-7 j, statim descendit unum de 
Seraphim, et contigit labia ejus carbone, et immunda ejus labia 
mundaret. 

" 14. Non unum est baptismum." 

"Bead the commandments of the Law, and you will find it 
written,— Whosoever shall touch the dead, becomes defiled (Numb. 



240 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

19 : 11). . . . Therefore we need purgation, because we have 
touched the dead (Numb. 19 : 1). . . . We all touch the dead. 
For who will boast that he keeps his heart pure, or who will 
dare to say that he is clean from sins ? There may be some 
one, possibly, who has not sinned in word, although such a 
one is rare, of whom God may say, as of holy Job : He has not 
sinned with his lips (Job 22 : 10) ; however, he could not always 
have the thoughts of his heart pure, the devil injects himself 
into the heart of man. Whoever keeps constant and vigilant 
guard over his heart, nevertheless lives in the midst of sinners, 
and even he has need to be purified. Hence Esaias, when he 
had said, (6 : 5-7,) immediately one of the Seraphim came down 
and touched his lips with a coal, and cleansed his unclean lips. 
"14. Baptism is not one." — Ambrose, ii, 1126, 1127. 

" Et sumet plenum batillum carbonibus ignis de altari, quod 
est contra Dominum (Leviticus 16 : 12). Legimus et in Isaia, 
quia igne purgatur propheta per unum ex Seraphim, quod mis- 
sum est ad eum, cum accepit forcipe carbon em unum ex his qui 
erant super altare, et contigit labia prophetse, et dixit: ' Ecce 
abstuli iniquitates tuas.' Mihi videntur mystica hsec esse, et hoc 
indicare, quod unicuique secundum id quod peccat, si dignum 
fuerit purificari eum, inferantur carbon es membris ejus. Nam 
quoniam dicit propheta hie: ' Immunda labia habeo, in medio 
quoque populi immunda labia habentis habito,' idcirco carbo for- 
cipe assumptus a Seraphim, labia ejus mundat, quibus solis se 
mundum non esse profitetur. . . . Nos autem, si redeat unus- 
quisque ad conscientiam suam, nescio si possumus aliquod mem- 
brum corporis excusare, quod non igni indigeat." 

"And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from 
off the altar before the Lord (Leviticus 16 : 12). We read also 
in Isaiah, that the prophet is purged by fire by one of the Sera- 
phim, sent to him, when he took with the tongs a live coal from 
those which were upon the altar, and touched the lips of the 
prophet and said, 'Behold I have taken aicay thine iniquities. 1 
These things seem to me to belong to the mysteries, and to in- 
dicate this, that to every one according to that which he sins, 
if he shall be worthy to be purified, burning coals shall be put 
upon his members. For since the prophet says : ' I have unclean 
lips, also I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips/ there- 
fore, a live coal having been taken by the Seraphim with tongs, 



BAPTISM BY A COAL OF FIRE. 241 

he purifies his lips, by which only he professes himself to be not 
clean. . . . But we, if every one would examine his conscience, 
I know not if we' could excuse any member of our body, that 
it should not need the fire. ... I fear lest we deserve the fire not 
for particular members, but for the whole body. . . . All are 
not purged by that fire which is taken from the altar. Aaron 
is purged by that fire, and Isaiah, and if there are any like them. 
But others who are not as they, among whom I reckon myself, 
will be purged by another fire. I fear lest by that of which it 
is written : < A fiery stream ran before him.' (Dan. 7 : 10.) This 
fire is not from the altar. The fire which is from the altar is the 
fire of the Lord, but that which is not from the altar, is not of 
the Lord, but is of the sinner himself, concerning which it is said, 
' Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched/ 
(Isaiah 66 : 24.) Therefore, this fire is theirs who kindled it, as it 
is elsewhere written : 'Walk in the light of your fire, and in the 
sparks that ye have kindled.' But his own fire is not applied to 
Isaiah, but the fire of the altar which purged around his lips." — 
Origen, ii, 517, 519. 

Bdizztaov /tie, zov fiiXXovza fiaxzi^etv zob$ niffzevovzas dt vdazo$ y xai 
n»£up.aro~, xa\ ~upoz' udazc duvarj.iv(o d-o~Xuvat za» dp.apztd>v zov ftopftopov 
Ilveufiarij duvarxiva) zobz yorxowz, -vsu/xazcxobs dizepydaaaOat' Tzup), 7zz(pux6zt 
xazaxaisr; zdq zd» dvo/j.7]fxdzwv dxdvOaq. 

"Baptize me, who am about to baptize them that believe, by 
water, and Spirit, and fire; by water, possessing power to wash 
away the filth of sins; by Spirit, possessing power to make the 
earthty spiritual; by fire, possessing a nature to burn up the 
thorns of transgressions." — Gregory Thaumaturgus, x, 1188. 

Zspr^oq — 8v fiezd -X.eiffzr^ fiaffdvtuv u-o/xovijv, xeyaX?^ drcozo/nfj xoXoati/jvat 
Xoyuq eyzt. Kai yuvatxajv de c llpa'iq ert xazayouixht], zo jSa^ziff/xa, wq roy 
<fTj<jh abzoq, zo did ~up)>z Xafiooaa rw ftwv £ze.XrjXu6sv. 

11 Serenus — who, after the endurance of great torments, is said 
to have been beheaded. And of women, Herais, yet a catechu- 
men, received that baptism which is by fire, as elsewhere related, 
and departed out of this life." — JEusebius, ii, 532. 

AMBROSE. 

The purification from the defilement contracted by touch- 
ing a dead body, required by the ceremonial law, and spoken 

16 



242 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

of by Jews and Patrists as a baptism, is here applied by Am- 
brose to those who live among, and become defiled by con- 
tact with those who are "dead in trespasses and sins." As 
the one required baptism, so the other required baptism. 
Special application is made to the case of Isaiah, who con- 
fesses himself to be "a man of unclean lips, and to dwell 
among a people of unclean lips." The first baptism was 
effected by the purifying power of sprinkled heifer ashes; 
the second baptism was effected by the purifying power of a 
burning coal. In neither case is the word baptism used, but 
in both cases the descriptive terms identify with baptism, as 
proved to be held by Jew and Patrist. To make an argu- 
ment on the mere absence of a word, as fatal to the existence 
of a baptism, is what no intelligent man will do. To deny 
the applicability of the term baptism to a case evidently 
made out for such application, and so used by competent 
writers, because we have not been accustomed to such ap- 
plication, is to rebel against supreme authority. 

Suppose a child has advanced so far in the knowledge of 
words as to understand, among other rudimentary terms, 
the names and application of words to designate colors, and 
bringing a handful of berries from the garden, is told by a 
parent, not to eat them for they are green. The child looks 
up in wonder, and exclaims: " Surely they are not 'green;' 
they are red all over." When the answer is returned: " Yes, 
they are 'red;' but being blackberries, they are green because 
they are red." With what an access of wonder and of blank 
incredulity will the child listen to all this. The same hand- 
ful of berries are "red," and " black," and " green," at one 
and the same time. What shall he do ? Set up his child- 
knowledge against the knowledge of his parent? and the 
testimony of his own eyes against the testimony of his pa- 
rent? Shall he stoutly affirm, that red berries cannot be black- 
berries ; but if red berries could be blackberries, certainly 
they could not be green berries; but if red could be black, 
or could be green, most assuredly they could not be red, and 
black, and green! And if father and mother say so, "I will 
order them to go to school." 



BAPTISM BY A COAL OF FIRE. 243 

The friends of the theory have learned, as they suppose, 
that " a baptism is a dipping, and nothing but a dipping;" and 
when they are told, by Jews, that a baptism is effected by 
the sprinkling of heifer ashes; they answer, "It cannot be." 
And when they are told, by Gentiles, that a baptism is ef- 
fected by laying a burning coal upon the lips; they redouble 
their cry, " It cannot possibly be." Do we not know that 
"dipping" is baptism? How then can sprinkling be a bap- 
tism? But if sprinkling can be baptism, how is it possible 
that laying a coal of fire on the lips can be baptism? No; such 
things cannot be; and "if the Angel Gabriel, himself, were 
to tell us so, ice would order him to school." 

The point made by this illustration is, not a likening of 
the knowledge of these ardent theorists to child-knowledge 
— this would be as untrue as it w T ould be unbecoming — but 
it is to show the great embarrassment and strong resistance 
which any one must make, when a word has been fixed with 
a single and exclusive meaning in the mind, when that word 
is presented in circumstances which create meanings the 
most opposite and inconsistent with that meaning which we 
have believed to be exhaustive of the capabilities of the 
word. 

It is not strange, that those who have put unquestioning 
faith in Dr. Carson's statement, "My dissertation has forever 
settled the meaning of /?ajrre'C«», if there be truth in axioms, 
to be dip, and nothing but dip" should be startled on finding 
Josephus and Justin, Clement and Chrysostom, Ambrose 
and Gregory, Basil and Origen, and a host of others, unite 
in calling sprinklings, pourings, washings, coals of fire, flam- 
ing swords, &c, &c, &c, agencies effecting baptisms. 

But what is best to be clone under such circumstances? 
Is it best still to follow a leader who has shown himself to 
be utterly mistaken as to the meaning in question, and cry, 
" To school, to school, Gabriel!" or, to have faith to believe 
that, in some way or other, (not apprehended by us,) the 
same object, at the same time, may be even red, black, and 
green ? 

After Ambrose had spoken of the baptism, by a coal of 



244 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

fire, without using the word, he shows that his mind was 
full of the thing, by commencing the immediately following 
paragraph with the words, "Baptism is not one," and intro- 
duces the baptism of the flaming sword, which has just been 
considered, as another illustration of fire baptism. There 
can then be no doubt, that this writer regarded a single coal 
of fire as competent, not, certainly, to dip, but to baptize — 
purifying from defilement incurred by utterances of the 
mouth. 

While such a baptism burns up the theory, it does not 
leave even "the smell of fire" on the principle, that bap- 
tisms are effected by controlling influences without regard 
to form in the action, or covering in the condition. 

ORIGEN. 

Censer of Burning Coals. — Origen believed that the censer 
of burning coals, taken by the high priest into the holy of 
holies, and the burning coal applied to Isaiah's lips, were of 
mystical import. He interprets that meaning as teaching, a 
baptism of fire applied to whatever member of the body may 
be the cause of defilement through transgression. He sup- 
poses the sin of the prophet to consist in wrong utterances, 
and therefore the baptizing power was applied to the lips. 
Origen does not teach that the defilement was in the lips; 
but the whole man was defiled through the lips. Therefore 
he says, " Thy iniquities are taken away." So he argues 
afterward, that any other member — eyes, hands, feet — that 
should engage in doing wrong, and thus defile us, "would 
need the fire." This shows, conclusively, that Origen did 
not believe in the idea that a baptism was limited to a cover- 
ing any more than to a dipping; for his doctrine applied fire, 
the baptizing agency, to the lips, the hand, the foot, while the 
baptism, the purifying influence, extended throughout the 
entire defiled person. He also speaks of those who give 
their whole bodies to sin, instead of giving them to the 
Lord, and of needing baptism by a different fire. This fire, 
he says, may be that "fiery stream" which was seen by 



BAPTISM BY A COAL OF FIRE. 245 

Daniel to run before the Lord. But here he says nothing 
about dipping into this flowing fire. 

But whether the theory will, in the absence of informa- 
tion as to the depth of this stream, think it worth while (in 
view of sprinkling, and pouring, and sword baptisms) to put 
in a plea, " if there was a baptism the word would prove, 
even in a desert, that there was enough water (fire) for a 
dipping," or not, I cannot tell. I suppose, however, not 
many would volunteer "to go down into " the fiery stream, 
to officiate at the dipping. But in what way soever the bap- 
tism may have taken place in this fire-river, if they were put 
beneath the glowing flood, nothing is more certain than that 
such a feature had nothing to do (beyond any other accident 
which might or might not be present) in constituting the 
baptism. Origen most distinctly recognizes as baptism, the 
very limited application of the fire to any member of the 
body. This is his language: "I fear lest we deserve the fire 
not for particular members, but for the whole body." Some 
were baptized by fire, by a limited application, others by a 
general application. The character of the sins determined 
the extent of application of the fire. 

" Another fire." Eot only was " baptism by fire " a distinct 
genus among baptisms, but there were varieties among fire- 
baptisms. This is distinctly taught by Origen, in making a 
broad distinction between baptism by "fire from of! the 
altar," and that which was by fire not from the altar. The 
first is " fire of the Lord," the last is "fire of the sinner." 
Inasmuch as these fires are agencies, and their effect upon 
sin and the sinner must depend upon their own character, 
real or putative, it is obvious that the influence produced by 
fire of the Lord and "fire of the sinner," cannot be the same. 
It follows, therefore, that the resultant conditions (baptisms) 
produced by these alien influences, must be alien from each 
other. And this brings us back again to the loudly-pro- 
claimed truth: " Baptism is not one." 

GREGORY THAUMATURGUS. 

Power of Baptism. — The extract from Gregory Thaumatur- 



246 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

gus, brings out vividly the truth that, in these secondary 
baptisms, there is no receiving element into which the bap- 
tized object passes, but the baptism is effected by, and exists 
in the effect of the power belonging to the agency. This is 
exhibited appropriately by the simple dative. But as this 
case is used in a local (with preposition) as well as instru- 
mental sense, advantage has been taken of this (sometimes 
with unexampled violence) to insist on a conversion of the 
agency into a local element. 

But such mischievous interpretation is effectually arrested 
by the substitution of the genitive in the place of the dative. 
That is the case here. The baptism is effected Si 6da~oq — 
mieunaTos — xupdq. There is no possibility of transforming this 
water, spirit, fire, into anything else than agency. Accumu- 
late water over the baptized object until it is submerged five 
hundred fathom deep, and yet you have made no progress 
toward the conversion of di udaroq into b udart; let a diseased 
imagination envelop the soul and body " in the spirit " 
poured out and rising up around it until it out-tops the 
mountains, and did meu/iaroq is no more & webtian than is a 
circle a square; deepen the fire-river until its bed rests on 
the centre of the globe, and dip the hapless sinner into its 
lowest depths, and 8t<k xopbq is as far removed from h -opt as 
by is from in. The whence case and the where case are in- 
convertible. This point receives additional evidence, of the 
strongest possible kind, by the conjunction of Suvap.iva> with 
these terms. To be baptized " by the power of water," " by 
the power of the Spirit," " by the nature of fire," as expres- 
sive of simple enclosure in water, in Spirit, in fire, is impossible 
and absurd phraseology. But if water, and Spirit, and fire 
are agencies accomplishing baptisms by their peculiar power, 
naturally or specially conferred, then, this qualifying term 
is most appropriate, and the theory is robbed of her receiv- 
ing element; that palladium which being lost, all is lost. 

This usage is most entirely coincident with that of the 
Classics. In all baptisms kindred to those which are now 
under consideration, they invariably use the dative, without 
a preposition, instrumentally. Wine is not the element in 



BAPTISM BY A COAL OF FIRE. 247 

which the baptism is effected, but the means by which. Drugs 
are not the element in which the man is put to sleep (bap- 
tized), but by which. Questions, magical arts, hard study, taxes, 
debts, grief, famine, are not elements in which men are bap- 
tized, but means by ivhich they are brought under their seve- 
ral peculiar and controlling powers. 

Classic, Jewish, and Patristic writings show that the theo- 
rists, unwarned by the blunder of Gale, (in making the nude 
dative local, in order to make fiaxTio dip, and so get the lake 
in the blood of the frog, instead of accepting a secondary 
meaning as indicated by the instrumental form, and dyeing 
the lake by blood), have perpetuated that error in their in- 
terpretation of these baptisms. To correct the error is to 
take the underpinning from the theory. 

EUSEBIUS. 

Baptism by the fire of martyrdom. — Herais, a female cate- 
chumeu and yet unbaptized by water, was put to death by 
fire, as a disciple of Christ. But the historian says : " She 
received that baptism which is by fire." Water baptism, 
ordinarily, was essential to salvation, because it w T as believed 
that there was a " power" in the water to take away sin from 
the soul. It w T as, however, agreed, that this power was not 
limited to water, but belonged, also, to "confession" of 
Christ by martyrdom. This was called sometimes, generi- 
cally, " baptism of martyrdom," " baptism of confession," 
and sometimes, specifically, " baptism of blood," " baptism 
of fire." 

The baptism had nothing, whatever, to do with the mode 
or extent of the application of the blood or fire to the body. 
These things were only the signs, or means of death. In 
death by fire the body was, more or less, enveloped by the 
flames, perhaps never absolutely, but this was no part of 
the baptism; that centred in dying for Christ. In this same 
extract we have a reference to a martyr who was beheaded. 
How much of his body was " enveloped" by the sword ? It 
w 7 as as much a baptism of the sword as that at the gate of 
Paradise. How much of his body was "covered" by his. 



248 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

blood ? If the headlesss trunk spouted forth its blood so 
that not one drop fell upon it, it was as much a baptism by 
blood, as if it had been sunk in the Mle when, under Moses' 
rod, its billows rolled in one crimson tide of blood. 

In every aspect in which the subject is presented we find 
nowhere a baptism in a receiving element; we find every- 
where, under every form of action, baptisms effected by 
agencies possessed of power to control completely the condition 
of their objects. 

A fiery stream, or a coal of fire, is equally suitable, as 
agencies, to effect a baptism. 

Isaiah, baptized by the seraphim with a burning coal, wit- 
nesses with pure and glowing lips that " the theory " is of 
earth and not from heaven. 



BAPTISM BY WATER, BY SPIRIT, AND BY FIRE. 
Isaiah 4 : 4. 

"When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the 
daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem 
from the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment and by the 
spirit of burning." 

Septuagint. 

v 0rt Ixitluvsl xvpioq rb\> pb-xov tojv utaJv xai tojv Ouyazipwv Zccuv, xa\ to 
alpa £xxa0aptel ix piffou auzajv, & Tzvsbpari xpiaewq xai xveupart xauatwq. 

Interpretation. 

^Ensi youv dpyoTspa auvrrf'ev 6 Kuptoq, to ts iq udaToq eiq 

psTavotav, xai to £x llveupaToq eiq avaygwyfftv, xai 6 Xoyoq ahiaazTai apcfo- 
Tspa to. (SaTVTtffpaTa. Mtjtzotb TpsTq datv al ercboiai tou fia-TiffpaToc, o 
re tou puizou xaOapurpoq, xa\ ^ did too UveupaToq a>ayi»r J (nq ) xai y ev tu> 
Ttup\ r^c xpiffswq fidcavoq. 

"This passage foretells, clearly, the same things which were 
spoken by John concerning the Lord: 'This is he who shall 
baptize you by the Holy Spirit and fire;' but concerning him- 
self, he says: 'I indeed baptize you with water into repentance.' 
Since then the Lord conjoined both, that from water into re- 



BAPTISM BY WATER, BY SPIRIT, AND BY FIRE. 249 

pentance, and that from the Spirit into regeneration, the Scrip- 
ture, also, foreshadows both these baptisms. Perhaps there are 
three meanings of baptism: purification from defilement, regen- 
eration by the Spirit, and trial by the fire of judgment. So that 
'the washing' (v. 4) is to be understood in reference to the re- 
moval of sin now; but 'by the spirit of judgment and by the 
spirit of burning,' (v. 4,) the reference is to the trial by fire in 
the future world." — Basil the Great, ii, 341. 



BASIL. 

By the spirit of burning. — The Septuagint, in translating 
this passage, uses the preposition (£v) but once, while Basil, 
following the Hebrew more closely, repeats it, — Sv nveufiart 

xpiffewq xa\ iv 7zveo;j.a7i xavasioq, 

It is admitted that & has an instrumental as well as a local 
force; but the theory is interested to make the former mean- 
ing as near zero as possible, and especially to insist, that in 
all cases of baptism it must have a local meaning. It is de- 
sirable, then, to look at the matter in the light of the usage 
of this highly accomplished Greek writer. 

1. The subject-matter embraced in these datives, is not 
favorable to the sense claimed. "Washing out (ImXuvei) and 
purging out {kxxafapiei) in (iv) a spirit of judgment and in (&) 
a spirit of burning." It is not likely that the sons and 
daughters of Zion would be represented as put within such 
things, to wash them and to purge them. But such sugges- 
tions of congruity are "lighter than vanity" when they con- 
flict with — "nothing but dip." We have seen this abun- 
dantly exemplified in Classic Baptism where, in the absence 
of the preposition, they have made the naked dative the oc- 
casion for putting men in a bottle of wine, in an opiate drug, 
and in a perplexing question. We must, then, find some 
other reason more imperative than the fitness of things. 

2. We show then, by other phraseology in the context, 
that Basil had no other idea than the use of this preposition 
with an instrumental force. 

This is manifest (1.) From his omission of the preposition; 

as, to dl meVfiaTt xptaswq xai x>eu/xaTt xa.bas.ojq, in the Same para- 



250 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

graph. But as we have already seen the natural force be- 
longing to this form of expression to be utterly set at naught, 
when there was nothing to encourage so doing; now, having 
aid and comfort from the previous use of l>, we can expect 
no voluntary concession. It must be wrung out. Basil fur- 
nishes us with material to do this. 

3. The dative, with the preposition, is changed into the 
genitive, with its prepositions. Thus & udazt becomes ^ oda- 

roq ; kv msv/iaTt becomes £x nvevfiaroq) Iv ru) izupi becomes &« toD 
nupoq, and & rob xupds', h meo/iazi zabaecoq becomes Sid T7 t q rob 

meupaToq xauaewz; and all this in a single paragraph. 

No wonder the theory makes a hard light here. The con- 
version of these datives into agencies, like the burning light- 
ning, withers its life to the very roots. Basil does his work 
well. 

Three meanings, — This able commentator says that bap- 
tism (as presented in this passage, not absolutely,) has three 
meanings or phases of development. It has been said (and 
I think the evidence to substantiate it given) in Classic Bap- 
tism, that " baptism is myriad-sided;" and, here, in a single 
passage, we are told, by a most accomplished Greek writer, 
that there is a threefold development of the word. And it 
is of this word the theory says: "It means dip, and nothing 
but dip, through all Greek literature." 

It will be observed, in this threefold baptism, that condi- 
tion is an ever-present element, and dipping, never. 

1. Purification: sl condition of purity induced, by the ap- 
propriate means, from either Judaic ceremonial impurity, 
or from the defilement of "lighter" sins. 

2. Regeneration: a condition of new spiritual life; the re- 
sult of a radical change in that condition pertaining to birth 
by nature. 

3. Trial by fire of judgment: a final test of our condition of 
preparation to enter into the Paradise of God. 

"Attic salt" has been freely sprinkled upon those who 
talked of a " religious " meaning belonging to ^anri^m. And 
yet the Archbishop of Csesarea, the first among Greek Pa- 
triarchs, furnishes us with something that looks very much 



BAPTISMS — MENTAL AND MORAL. 251 

like a religious meaning of this word. Certainly there is 
but little which resembles, in nature, that Classic use which 
has heretofore engaged our attention. Religious purification 
is the ground-thought, as presented in these three baptisms; 
this elementary idea receiving coloring from the specialties 
of each case. Religious usage has given a religious mean- 
ing, or fact is fiction. 

But while there is a religious element and a religious 
meaning here present, it is reached without the slightest de- 
parture from the principles of language, and without laying 
aside the original fundamental thought of condition, charac- 
terized by completeness. The difference exists only in the char- 
acter of the agencies, and the ends to which they are ad- 
dressed. Take wine, as a baptizing agency, and you have 
a Classic baptism of one kind. Take a drugged drink, as a 
baptizing agency, and you have a Classic baptism of another 
kind. "Baptism is not one," is a doctrine as much believed 
by the Classics as by the Patrists. Among the " multa 
genera baptismatum," the genus treated of by Basil and his 
friends, differed from that treated of by Plutarch and his as- 
sociates. 

These fire baptisms throw their light far and wide; but 
their light is darkness to the theory. 



BAPTISMS— MENTAL AND MOKAL. 

BAPTISM BY HEAVY IRON AND BY HEAVIEST SINS. 
II Kings 6 : 5, 6. 

"But as one was felling a beam, the axe-head fell into the 
water; and he cried, and said, Alas, master! for it was bor- 
rowed. 

"And the man of God said, Where fell it? And he showed 
him the place. And he cut down a stick and cast it in thither; 
and the iron did swim." 



252 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

Interpretation. 

SuXov "Efoaaaioc; (3aka)v iiq rbv 'lopdavyv xoranov dvrjveyxs rbv ffidijpov 
rr)s d.£tv7)<;, h yj TtsTcopeuixivoi 7J<rav 6t uio\ rtuv izpoipr^raiv xo<f>ai . . . w~ xai 
y/jLaq fizfiaTiTiGiiivovq, rdlq ftapurdraiq d/xaprtaic; aq i.7:pdqa/j.e> did rod arau- 
pw07jvat &iti rod £uXou xai di odaroq dyvtaai 6 Xpiardq r t i±<bv Ikurpdxraro. 

" Elisha casting a stick into the river Jordan, brought up the 
iron of the axe with which the sons of the prophets had gone 
forth to cut wood ... as also Christ hath redeemed us, mersed 
by heaviest sins which we have committed, through the cruci- 
fixion upon the wood, and purification through water." — Justin 
Martyr, 681. 

" Bxiliit ferrum, et mersum est in flumine, . . . accepto ligno, 
et misso in eum locum, ubi submersum fuerat ferrum, statim 

supernatavit Quid manifestius hujus ligni sacramento? 

quod duritia hujus sseculi mersa in profundo erroris, et a ligno 
Christi, id est passionis ejus, in baptism o, liberatur, ut quod 
perierat olim per lignum in Adam, id restitueretur per lignum 
Christi." 

"Moreover we read in the book of Kings that the sacrament 
of this word is celebrated. For when the sons of the prophets 
were cutting wood with axes over the river Jordan, the iron fell 
off and was mersed in the river; and so the prophet Elisha, com- 
ing up, the sons of the prophets ask from him that he would draw 
out the iron which had been mersed in the river. -Elisha hav- 
ing taken a piece of wood, and cast it into the place where the 
iron had been submersed, immediately it floated. . . . By which 
they understood that the spirit of Elijah was present again in 
him. What is more clear than the sacrament of this wood ? 
that the hardness of this age, mersed in the depth of error, is 
delivered by the wood of Christ." — Tertullian, ii, 636. 

"(Imp rjv <J7]fidov dvaycoy^q ^.'uyuJv did guXou, ky o5 nlrzovdzv 6 i^'u/dq 
dvdyeiv duvdfievoq, dxokoo6ouaaq dvodto rr) iaurod. 

" Which was a sign of the bringing up of souls, through the 
cross, upon which he suffered, who is able to bring up souls fol- 
lowing in the way of his ascending." — Ireticeus, 1243. 

Ouroq (o araupbq) d~b rod fiu8od rfjq xaxiaq fj/iaq dvda-daaq. 

" This (the cross) drawing us up from the depth of deprav- 
ity." — Chrysostom, ii, 407. 



BAPTISM OF THE AXE. 253 

" Invocavit Eliseus Domini nomon, ct de aqua ferrum securis 
ascendit quod dcmersum fuerat. Eccc aliud genus baptisraatis. 
Quarc? Quia omnis homo ante baptismum quasi ferrum pre- 
mitur, atquc demergitur, ubi baptizatus merit, non tanquam fer- 
rum, sed tanquam jam levior fructuosi ligni species elevatur. 
. . . Tides, ergo, quod in cruce Christi omnium hominum leva- 
tur infirmitas." 

" Elisha called upon the name of the Lord, and the iron of the 
axe which had been demersed ascends from the water. Behold, 
another kind of baptfsm ! Why ? Because every man before 
baptism, like iron, is pressed down and demersed; when bap- 
tized, not like iron, but like some lighter kind of fruitful wood, 
he is raised up. . . . Thou seest, therefore, that by the cross of 
Christ the infirmity of all men is lightened." — Ambrose, iii, 427. 

BAPTISM OF THE AXE. 

The mersion of the axe in Jordan has special interest, 
because it brings us back into a purely classic atmosphere. 
Heathen writers give us abundant cases in which heavy 
bodies, going down to the bottom of rivers, lakes, marshes, 
and seas, and remaining there unrecovered, are in a state 
of baptism. A ship, a fishing-spear, a breastplate, a man in 
armor, sunk in river or sea, is baptized, lost, in a ruined 
condition. 

The natural, unavoidable application in secondary use, 
of the word expressive of such condition, would be to such 
things as exhibit a condition of suffering or ruin. Thus, a 
man who had lost the control of his intellect by hard study, 
or bewilderment, or idiocy; who had lost the control of his 
property by debt or misfortune; who had lost his happiness 
through some great sorrow; who had lost his health by dis- 
ease; who had lost his consciousness through intoxication; 
was freely called a baptized man. The classic, secondary 
use of the word did not pass, at all or but little, beyond this 
range of application to conditions of injury, loss, and ruin. 
Josephus frequently employs the word after the usage of the 
classics, and also carries it into another sphere, namely, that 
of religion, as expressive of a condition of ceremonial puri- 



254 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

fication. In doing this, he neither departs from the funda- 
mental character of the word, nor from the principle of 
classic usage in its extension to cases of controlling influ- 
ence, where there is no physical envelopment. 

While a very large number of cases of mersion result in 
injury or destruction, this is not the case with every mersion. 
The nature of the condition resultant from a physical mer- 
sion will depend : 1. On the nature of the element within 
which the mersion takes place ; and, 2. Ou the nature of the 
object mersed. Time of continuance cannot be introduced 
as an additional element determining the condition to which 
mersion may be applied, because mersion has no limitation 
of time, and to introduce such an element would be to intro- 
duce what is foreign to its nature. A mersed condition may 
be changed by foreign influences, but it has no element of 
change within itself. Baptism, therefore, can only be ap- 
plied to such conditions as are either absolutely permanent, 
or which left to themselves would be so. 

Historically we have, as elements of mersion, water, (in 
various forms, fresh, salt, pure, impure, hot, cold, as also 
impregnated with various qualities,) oil, milk, wine, blood, 
vinegar, mud, marsh, the human body, &c. As mersed ob- 
jects we have, rocks, metals, salt, sponge, a crown, a pickle, 
human beings, a dolphin, an ape, clean things, unclean 
things, &c. &c. 

Now it is obvious, that the mersion of the same object into 
different elements would be productive of conditions widely 
different. Take, for instance, a piece of limestone and im- 
merse it, first in water and then in vinegar, and how different 
the resultant conditions. Take any object and immerse it 
in water or in oil, in milk or in blood, and how different 
the result. ■ Take a vegetable and immerse it in Byrup or in 
vinegar, and you have a preserve or a pickle. Mersion in 
clean water or dirty water has not the same issue. If you 
take different objects and use the same element, you still 
have a diversity of conditions. The mersion of a dolphin 
and an ape in water, is a condition of life in the one case and 
of death in the other. The mule of the fable found out, 



BAPTISM OF THE AXE. 255 

that the condition resultant from the mersion of a bag of 
salt or of a bag of sponge, in the same element, was widely 
diverse. Merse clean linen into pure water and muddy 
water; is the result the same? 

Nothing can be more evident, than that Classic Baptism, 
with its wide range of elements and of objects, could never 
be restricted, by any necessity of its own, to the designation 
of condition limited by injury or ruin. It is perfectly adapted 
to this end; but no less so to express condition, endlessly 
varied, under the ruling thought of controlling influence. 

When this Greek word was introduced within the sphere 
of revealed religion it met, everywhere, the demand for a con- 
dition of complete ceremonial purification. It met with in- 
fluences proceeding, by divine enactment, from water, blood, 
heifer ashes, &c, competent to effect such condition. To se- 
cure such condition, modes of use — washing, pouring, sprink- 
ling, (but never the dipping of men and women into water,) 
— were found divinely enacted. Under these circumstances 
Jewish writers took this word and applied it, without vary- 
ing one jot or tittle from the principle of Classic usage, to a 
condition resultant from controlling influence; the specific 
condition being — complete ceremonial purification. Patristic 
writers, while thoroughly accepting both Classic and Jewish 
usage, carry on the idea through ceremonial rites and types 
to the consummation of a complete spiritual purification, 
through agencies which they believed were fully competent 
to control the result without dipping or covering, any more 
than Classic usage, in parallel cases, required dipping or 
covering. 

Let us now attend to the manner in which this axe-bap- 
tism, so separated from Judaism and so exclusively Classical 
in its character, is treated by the Theorists and the Patrists 
respectively; as, also, to its bearing on their principles. 

Dr. Carson lays hands on this transaction with a smile of 
joy and claims it all his own. But why, Doctor? Is this 
baptism to be marshalled under — "Modal act, dip and noth- 
ing but dip, through all Greek literature?" Was the axe 
" dipped" into the Jordan? "Although there is no exempli- 



256 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

fication of the act of dipping in the axe falling, yet the word 
expresses the act, and was designed to express it, as much 
as in any case of dipping, as I have proved, (to my entire 
satisfaction,) in the sea-coast baptism, where ' overflow ' is 
put, by catachresis, for dipping, just as 'fall' is here put 
for dipping. The axe, when it fell into the water, was 
covered, and when it was brought up by the prophet it was 
uncovered, just as the sea-coast is covered and bare at high 
and low tide. In both cases one form of act is, by figure, 
put for another form of act; and any one who has a soul for 
poetry can see the beauty of the figure." But your friends, 
Fuller, and Ripley, and Conant, having read your explana- 
tion of catachristic baptism, say, they cannot see the poetry, 
and that "overflow" must remain overflow, and "fall" must 
remain fall, just as in plain prose. " Then, what are they 
contending for; they give up the question; baptizing is dip- 
ping, and dipping is baptizing?" Well, I have been trying 
to find out where they are since they have slipped anchor 
from the dipping ground; but I cannot say. But, Doctor, 
it seems that the axe was a good while under water; and if 
it had been a son of the prophet who got this baptism in the 
Jordan instead of the axe, and he had lain on the bottom 
until they went after the prophet, and told the story, and 
brought him to the spot, and he had cut a stick, and thrown 
it in, it would not have done him much good to have brought 
him up again. Like Aristobulus he would have " remained 
under too long." 

This axe-baptism, so thoroughly Classic, confronts the 
theory with two projecting and very sharp horns; on the 
one is written — " No dipping in me;" on the other — "No 
taking out of Jordan by me." 

This axe of the sons of the prophets cuts up the theory 
even on the very banks of Jordan. Perhaps it could not be 
put to better service. Its trenchant blows are irresistible. 
"Modal act," "catachresis," " temporary covering," can no 
more resist its blows, than the turbaned head of the Saracen 
the blows of the battle-axe of Richard. The theory is brained, 
and dies (with poetical justice) by the loved banks of the river. 



BAPTISM BY HEAVIEST SINS. 257 

We will now look at the theory in the light of that " other 
kind of baptism" which the Patrists deduce from this literal 
and Classic baptism. 

JUSTIN MARTYR. 

Justin, originally a Greek philosopher, familiar with all its 
schools of learning, and then, a Christian, Patrist, and Martyr, 
says, " So, also, we are baptized by heaviest sins." This, cer- 
tainly, is "another baptism" from enveloping water, and yet 
it is a true baptism if we may rely upon the testimony of one 
who was a Greek of the Greeks. What is the resemblance 
between the two baptisms, and what is the justification in 
carrying over the name from the one to the other? 

1. The baptisms resemble each other in that neither re- 
quires a modal act for its accomplishment. As a matter of 
fact the axe was baptized by falling, and "falling " is a modal 
act; but I have never understood that the theory took the 
ground that "falling was baptizing and baptizing was fall- 
ing." As a matter of fact our first parents were "baptized 
by heaviest sin" through the eating of the forbidden fruit. 
And "eating" is a modal act; yet, I presume we will not 
be required to identify the modal act of eating with the modal 
act of falling, or be shut up to the proof that " eating is bap- 
tizing and baptizing is eating." 

I think we may safely assume that Justin's baptism does 
not forfeit its title, because the act, by which the soul is bap- 
tized through sin, is not of the same modal form as that by 
which the axe passes to its baptism on the bottom of the 
Jordan. 

2. These baptisms resemble each other in that both are 
characterized by completeness of condition. The one of 
fact, a complete water envelopment; the other not of fact, 
nor of imagination, but of verbal suggestion. The theory 
does not require that physical envelopment should be shown 
in Bin-baptism, as a fact, but demands the ineffable absurdity 
that the sinner should, by a lively imagination, be dipped 
into water! There is no such rhetorical bathos in Justin's 
"other baptism." Verbal suggestion of envelopment, more 

17 



258 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

or less according to circumstances, is all that belongs to the 
word at any time in this secondary use ; and oftentimes, as 
to the design of the writer or the fitness of the case, this 
suggestion has no existence. And for this there is the most 
substantial reason. These secondary baptisms are not de- 
duced from those primary baptisms in which there is mere 
envelopment; but from a very different class, namely, those 
in which the envelopment is overshadowed by its result, and 
is of no value except as causative of that result. To illus- 
trate : Suppose one of the sons of the prophets had picked 
up a pebble and thrown it into the river ; there would have 
been a baptism, a complete envelopment, and that would 
have been all. The baptism would not have been causative 
of injury to the pebble, or of loss and grief to the son of the 
prophet. ISTow if such baptism (of mere envelopment), had 
been exhaustive of literal baptisms, we would never have 
heard of grief baptisms, and debt baptisms, and sleep bap- 
tisms, and drunken baptisms, among tl^e Classics; nor of 
purification baptisms, and sin baptisms, among Jews and 
Patrists. 

A man who would make a pebble baptism the basis of a 
"baptism for the soul in sin" would be a laughing-stock for 
the common sense of the world. What would be the re- 
semblance ? " The envelopment." But there is no envelop- 
ment in sin. ."True, but we imagine it." And why, for 
its own sake? "No, not for the mere envelopment, but 

for " Well, for what ? " Why, I suppose to show how 

fully at every point, the soul is subject to the influence of 
sin." Very well ; will you now be so kind as to point out the 
fulness of influence exerted at every point, by water, over a 
flint pebble ? "If not made soaking wet, it is damp outside" 

It is unnecessary to say, that there is no more basis in bap- 
tisms of naked envelopment on which to ground secondary 
baptisms of influence, than there was to be found a -oD <rra> 
for Archimedes to lift the world. I repeat, therefore, that 
the baptism of Justin is founded on another class of baptisms, 
namely, the baptism of a world, of a ship, of a human being, 
loss, ruin, and death. In such baptisms envelop- 



BAPTISM BY HEAVIEST SINS. 259 

ment is subsidiary to influence ; and, therefore, in secondary 
baptisms based upon them, the formal cause may disap- 
pear, while correspondent influence appears in boldest relief. 
This truth Dr. Carson is compelled to admit. In answer to 
the objection, that there is no resemblance of envelopment 
between these secondary and primary baptisms, he replies 
(p. 493) : "Is not the resemblance in the effects?" How this 
consists with the theory it is no business of ours to show ; 
but it relieves us, by the confession of an opponent, of the 
necessity for showing any resemblance, or any existence of 
envelopment in the case of secondary baptisms, if we can 
show existence and resemblance of " effects." 

3. I proceed, then, to show : That these baptisms resemble 
each other in their resultant "effects." The baptism of the 
axe brought it into a lost condition. There was nothing in 
baptism to change that condition ; the son of the prophet 
could not recover it, and he was affected with grief, exclaim- 
ing, "Alas ! master it was bqrrowed." The borrower cared 
nothing for the covering water save as it brought his axe 
into a lost condition. It was not the envelopment that he 
cared for, but the effect of that envelopment. Had the axe 
fallen into shallow water where he could see it and pick it 
up, effect, lost condition, would not have existed; and Justin 
would have lost the opportunity to ground his sin baptism 
upon it. It is the lost condition of an object lying at the bot- 
tom of a river, which suggests to this Greek, (who still wears 
the mantle of a philosopher,) the lost condition baptism of the 
souls of men, through sin. Now, what need, or fitness, or 
practicability is there of introducing envelopment in this 
baptism? The axe was lost, completely lost; the soul is 
lost, completely lost; the axe is baptized, completely under 
the influence of the waters as separating" it from the loser; 
the soul is baptized, completely under the influence of sin, 
which separates it from God. Herein is Justin's justifica- 
tion in deducing siu baptism from this axe baptism. 

4. There is another point of resemblance in these bap- 
tisms, which is essential. They are both without limitation 
in their continuance. The axe would have continued at the 



260 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

bottom of Jordan, until this hour, had it been left to its 
baptism. The Greek word never takes its object out of that 
condition into which it has once placed it. Souls have con- 
tinued baptized by sin through thousands of years, and, alas! 
some will continue " baptized by heaviest sins" through all 
eternity. 

5. These baptisms resemble each other, in that both may 
be changed by ab extra influence. The axe may be brought 
out of its baptism by the prophet; the soul may be brought 
out of its baptism by the cross of Christ. But without 
foreign influence baptisms are fixed. 

JSTone can doubt but that Justin's baptism is fitly termed 
a baptism, not because of any form of act done, nor because 
of an envelopment the result of some act of any kind; but 
because of a condition without any self-changiug element, 
and characterized by controlling influence. 

Compare, now, with this Jordan baptism, the baptism of 
the theory. 

1. The theory calls for a definite act. " The word, with- 
out one exception, signifies simply to dip." (Carson, p. 103.) 
"Well, was " the axe " dipped ? " In any particular instance, 
where this word is applied to an object lying under water, 
but not actually dipped, the mode essentially denoted by it, 
is as truly expressed as in any other instance of its occur- 
rence. Indeed, the whole beauty of such expressions con- 
sists in the expression of a mode not really belonging to the 
thing expressed. The imagination," &c, (p. 21.) We will 
not follow Dr. Carson's " imagination." Can demonstration 
be more absolute in proof that Dr. C. had no just conception 
of the meaning of PanTiZto ? Was the axe, baptized in the 
Jordan, "dipped?" Will any sane "imagination" under- 
take the task of c6nverting the fall of a piece of iron to the 
bottom of a river, into a dipping f Yet the theory imposes 
this hard task upon its disciples. 

2. The theory makes no provision for state or condition of 
the baptized object. If the son of the prophet had " dipped " 
his axe into the Jordan, would he have changed its state or 
condition? The dipping of no object can, by any possibility, 



BAPTISM BY HEAVIEST SINS. 261 

give it a status within the element into which it is clipped; 
because it cannot be dipped without being brought out, 
without tarrying, from the element into which it has been 
introduced. But the very essence of a baptism is the bring- 
ing of an object into a new state or condition; and, without 
this, there can be no baptism. The dipping of an axe, there- 
fore, is no baptism. 

3. The theory makes no provision for complete influence. 
The act of dipping is, proverbially, a trivial act. The dip- 
ping of an object can produce but a trivial impression upon 
it. So thoroughly ingrained is this characteristic in all that 
pertains to the physical sphere of this word, that it forms the 
basis for its secondary use, to express trivial operations and 
influences of the mind. No word is more thoroughly re- 
moved from the sphere of (ia-ri^m^ whether in primary or 
secondary baptisms, than this dapper word "dip." And yet 
Dr. Carson makes this word his battle-flag, while strangely 
shouting, amid the din of arms, "complete subjection to in- 
fluence." Hear him : " Is not the likeness between complete 
subjection to the influence of sleep, and the complete subjec- 
tion of an object to the influence of a liquid when immersed (?) 
in it?" (p. 80.) One knows not whether to laugh or frown 
at the lawless introduction here of "immerse," heaven- wide 
different in meaning from dip, for which he avowedly con- 
tends. Its substitution, however, proves our position, that 
"dip " can never bring an object in "complete subjection to 
the influence of a liquid." It is therefore utterly incapaci- 
tated to expound secondary baptisms, which all exhibit some 
powerful controlling influence, or to be the basis of primary 
baptisms, on which secondary are grounded. 

Justin would have talked more like a scholaslikos than like 
a philosopher, had he deduced a sin-dipping from the axe lost 
in the river depths. 

Brought face to face with this Classic-Patristic Baptism, 
"the theory" breaks down at all points. 

Justin and Carson are at opposites in their notions of bap- 
tisms. But, alas! so much the worse for Justin. I suppose 
he will have to become a fellow-pupil with the Angel Gabriel. 



262 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

TRANSLATION. 

" Heaviest Sins." 

Justin Martyr, in speaking of men as baptized by a bap- 
tism analogous to that of the lost axe, uses this language — 

wq xai rji±a<z (3e(3a.7ZTtff/j.£vouq raiq jjapurdraiq d/JLapriaiq. This phrase- 
ology is not only of great value, as showing the true nature 
of baptism, by placing primary baptism and secondary bap- 
tism (the secondary being the direct offspring of the primary) 
side by side, but the phraseology itself has special claim to 
our attention. In the person of this writer, the heathen 
Classic and the christian Patrist meet together. The forms 
of expression which he employs, must therefore be of truly 
Grecian parentage, and any new mental conception, derived 
from the Christian atmosphere, into which he has been in- 
troduced, must have its fittest Grecian dress in the words 
with which he invests it. 

In comparing the language of Justin, on this occasion, 
with that of other Classic Greek writers, we notice, 1. That 
both employ the nude dative with Pamela*. 2. That both em- 
ploy this nude form to express the agency by which the bap- 
tism is effected, and not the element into which the object 
is introduced. 3. That neither, in these secondary baptisms, 
made any verbal statement of an enveloping element. 4. 
That neither, certainly, felt the need of any such suggestion, 
and probably, never formed any such mental conception. 
How, now, is this language of Justin treated by the theory? 
It is translated by Carson, "immersed in the greatest sins;" 
"baptized in the most grievous sins." The Greek word 
neither means "greatest" nor " most grievous," but heaviest. 
Justin employs this term because it is adapted to express, 
clearly and forcibly, what he wished to express, namely, an 
agency of baptism; and, also, because his cultivated mind 
enabled him to see the fitness of taking this term from the 
heaviness of the iron, which was causative of the baptism of 
the axe. Carson rejects this term because it was not adapted 
to express an element for a dipping, for which his erring theory 
evermore cries out. 



BAPTISM IN THE DEPTH OF ERROR. 263 

The heavy waters of the Dead Sea are not well suited for 
dipping. The heaviness of the iron, certainly, was not the 
element into which the axe was dipped. 

"What must he thought of the theory of a word whose in- 
exorahle demands require the sacrifice of grammatical forms, 
the disregard of the evident design of a writer, and the meta- 
morphosis of heavy iron into an element for dipping? 

I bring no charge of designed wrong against Dr. Carson. 
His theory, conscientiously and tenaciously held, demands a 
dipping, and he will " make it find him one in the sands of 
the desert." No wonder, then, when this Classic Patristic 
writer gives him none, he "makes" his theory find one. It 
is as easy to turn heavy iron, or heavy sins, into a pool of 
water, as desert-sands. But Hercules may perish through 
exhaustion. And the theory, which amuses itself with such 
freaks of power, will hardly live forever. 

TERTULLIAN. 

" Mersed in the Depth of Error." 

Tertullian here introduces us to the element in which, by 
verbal suggestion, the baptism takes place. It is important 
that it should receive attention. It is as obvious that Ter- 
tullian speaks of the element, as that Justin speaks of the 
agency. The latter takes weight out of the iron agency, in 
the first baptism, and attributes it to "sin," the agency in 
the second baptism; the former takes "depth" out of the 
river-element, and attributes it to " error," the element, by 
verbal suggestion, in which the "hardness" (taken out of the 
axe) "of the age is mersed." 

How is this language to be treated ? We start out with 
the admission, by all, that there is no mersion in fact, and, 
on my own responsibility, I add, that there is no mersion in 
error possible in imagination. What process of interpreta- 
tion shall be used ? 

The theory says: Convert "error" into a pool of water, 
and all runs smoothly. Let us see. If we are to have a 
water-pool, then all its accessories must come along with it. 



264 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

"We must have something to be dipped. What is it ? Is it 
replied, "the hardness of the age?" Very well. And now 
that this "object" is deposited by the pool, pray tell us, as 
a help to our imagination, what it is like; what is its shape, 
color, weight, and size? "Error" having been transformed 
into water, there is now embarrassment in getting "hardness 
of the age " dipped into it. Into what shall this be transformed 
to meet the exigency? Into a stone? into a stick of wood? 
into a lump of iron? That would meet the "hardness" of 
the age ; but it should not be too large, for then it would be 
too heavy to be dipped. Shall it be a human being? Kot 
an infant; that could be dipped, but the theory don't like the 
baptism of little children. Then let it be a full-grown adult, 
and he can help dip himself by that peculiar mode, known 
to the theory, of walking into the water. But this Mr. "Hard- 
ness of the Age " must not walk too far into the water, for 
while walking will answer for dipping the feet, it will not 
answer for dipping the head — at least so we are told. Then 
we must have a dipper. Who shall it be ? Will some friend 
of the theory answer ? If not, we must apply to old Justin. 
He says, " sin " is the dipper. But " sin " can no more put 
"hardness of the age" (metamorphosed into a "Mister") 
into the water, than "hardness of the age" could get into 
the water without such metamorphosis. If " Sin " is to offici- 
ate as a dipper into water of Mr. " Hardness of the Age," then 
"Sin" must also take shape. What shall it be? 

11 Before the gates there sat 
On either side a formidable shape: 
The one seemed woman to the waist and fair, 
But ended foul in many a scaly fold 
Voluminous and vast, a serpent arm'd 
With mortal sting : about her middle round 
A cry of Hell hounds, never ceasing, bark'd 
With wide Cerberean mouths full loud, and rung 
A hideous peal: yet when they list, would creep, 
If aught disturbed their noise, into her womb, 
And kennel there, yet there still bark'd and howl'd, 
Within unseen. . . . and me they call'd Sin I" 

Fearful administratrix this ! But, alas ! none other can 



BAPTISM IN THE DEPTH OF ERROR. 265 

officiate at the baptism of the " hardness of the age." We 
have now got the element, and the object, and the adminis- 
tratrix. What next? The baptism. What is a baptism? 
" The complete subjection of an object to the influence of a 
liquid." (Carson, p. 80.) By what act is this to be secured? 
Letting pass, now, the impracticable and piebald character 
of a union of baptism and dipping, I would inquire what is 
the final result of dipping Mr. Hardness of the Age, by 
Mistress Sin, into a pool of water? " He is completely sub- 
jected to the influence of water." In what respect ? Is he 
drowned? "No." Is he washed? "No." Is he made very 
wet? "That depends upon what suit he wore." Well, I do 
not know what other complete influence of water there is; 
but make it what you will it is the full influence of water. 
Then, pray tell us what bearing the full influence of water, 
brought to bear by "sin," on a "hard age" has to do with 
the baptism in "error" spoken of by Tertullian? 

Was there ever a greater rhetorical and logical blunder 
than the conversion of " error" into a pool of water? This 
" error" of Tertullian is as unalterable as the poles; around 
it every attendant conception must revolve. It is placed 
there by the writer as a despot on his throne, and every 
word must bow down in reverence to his sovereign power. 
" Sin " and " age " are, also, unalterable words. " Hardness," 
"heaviest," "depth," "mersion," "in," may all receive 
modification; but "error," " sin," and "age" must abide. 
When these words are used with words directly expressive 
of manifestly impracticable forms, it is equivalent to saying, 
" Be on your guard ; take out from these words the thought 
adapted to the case." 

In the phrase — "the age, by sin, is mersed in error" — we 
see, at a glance, that in its literality there is an impracticable 
statement. But it comes from an intelligent source, and we 
know that there is a rational thought in it. We examine 
the wording and perceive that u age," "sin," and "error" 
must be fixed quantities. This conclusion compels us to 
seek a solution of the thought in " mersed in." We glance 
over its usage in relations where its literal demand is met, 



266 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

and mersion, envelopment, intusposition takes place, and 
nothing more. We take our discovery and apply a mersion- 
envelopment to solve the difficulty. But we find that it will 
not answer. The nature of " error" is not such as to allow 
an object to get within it, so as to be enveloped by it. We 
try again; and find objects " mersed in" a great variety of 
elements in which, beside the envelopment, there is the 
additional feature of controlling influence proceeding from 
the enveloping element over its object, and, farther, that 
in such cases the envelopment is simply a means to an end. 
We return with our spoils and try again. Having already 
found that envelopment is, ex necessitate rei, out of the case, 
we apply that which is the invariable attendant upon certain 
mersions, and is the sole end for which certain other mer- 
sions are sought, namely, controlling influence. The phrase 
then reads — " the age, by sin, mersed in— subject to the con- 
trolling influence of error." "Mersed in" is suggestive of 
envelopment as the source of the influence; but envelop- 
ment is not, itself, usable, and we throw it aside for that 
which is demanded, namely, influence. 

Is not this process simple, intelligible, satisfactory in its 
results, and harmonious with the laws of language develop- 
ment? 

" Mersos in caligine" — " in peccato" — "in blasphemm" — " in 
dementia" Souls mersed in darkness — in sin — in blasphemy — 
in dementia — are other cases of baptism spoken of by Ter- 
tullian, which demonstrate the ineptness of a water-pool for 
such baptism. Here are specific influences, most marked 
in character and most diverse from each other. Mersion in 
water is not calculated to show forth any one of them ; for 
there is nothing in water influence which resembles spiritual 
darkness, or sin, or blasphemy, or dementia. If it is said that 
it is not because of resemblance between the influence of 
water and these influences that the pool is introduced, but 
for the sake of the mersion, then the case is, if possible, made 
worse; for no resemblance can be here, for no intusposition 
in spiritual darkness, or sin, or blasphemy, or dementia, 



ANOTHER KIND OF BAPTISM. 267 

exists in fact, or can exist in conception. There is no mer- 
sion in any one element which can shadow forth these varied 
baptisms. It is impracticable to get a varied element ap- 
propriate to each. "VVe repudiate, therefore, the whole thing 
as a search after truth where it is not to be found; and take 
the grand feature of controlling influence, uncolored by any 
specific quality, and submit it for the stamp of character to 
any and every particular case, whether it be "soul dark- 
ness," " sin," in general, " blasphemy " in particular, mental 
" imbecility," or what not. 

If in the development of language any word ever lost an 
element which was originally characteristic of it, such a word 
is (SaTzr^u). And if ever ^dr.xm lost in the course of usage the 
act of dipping, (originally its grand and sole characteristic,) 
then, (3a--{'CtD has, as certainly, lost in the course of usage the 
condition of envelopment, which was, originally, its grand and 
sole characteristic. If the one word came by varied steps 
of progression to express, directly, dyeing ; the other came, 
by a similar process, to express, directly, controlling influence, 

" Aliud genus Baptismatis" 

"When Ambrose speaks of "another kind of baptism," he 
is not speaking, like Justin, of a baptism which, while differ- 
ing in nature and in all other attendant features from the 
mersed axe, still, resembles it in its most essential feature, 
namely, that of lost condition; but he speaks of a wholly 
different kind of baptism from both of these; a baptism 
which is grounded on the passing of the axe out of a lost 
condition into a saved condition. If a seal were needed to 
be affixed to the tomb of this thrice slain theory of " dipping 
and nothing but dipping through all Greek literature," we 
have it here furnished to our hand. The image stamped 
upon this seal is that of "Ambrose;" the superscription is — 
"Aliud genus baptismatis." Was anything ever more ut- 
terly removed from a dipping than the ascent of an axe from 
the bottom of a river to its surface ? 

But, still more, we have here the most absolute proof that 



268 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

it is not act of any kind which characterizes a baptism, but 
condition marked by completeness and indefinite continu- 
ance. The axe by falling passes into a lost condition caused 
by enveloping waters. The axe by rising up passes into a 
saved condition not caused by any enveloping medium. 
Thus we see that a complete change of condition, without 
envelopment, is, and is well termed a baptism. Similar 
baptisms with this latter one may be found in Classic Bap- 
tism (pp. 325, 329). The first is like this, a baptism of iron ; 
but of red hot iron, brought into a condition of coldness by the 
application of water, without envelopment. The second is 
a baptism of wine by pouring water into it; by which it 
passes out of an intoxicating into an unintoxicating condi- 
tion. It is not true, then, that, even in physical things, an 
envelopment is essential to a baptism. Completeness of 
condition, with indefiniteness of continuance, is essential, in 
all baptisms, whether physical or unphysical. The axe is 
brought into a thoroughly saved condition without limitation 
of time, through the influence of the wood; the hot iron is 
brought into a thoroughly cold condition through the heat- 
quenching influence of water, without limitation of time; 
and the wine is brought into a thoroughly unintoxicant con- 
dition, without limitation of time, through the attempering 
influence of water. 

The soul is brought out of one baptism, indefinitely long 
and ruinous in its nature, into another baptism, indefinitely 
long and saving in its nature; both of them without en- 
velopment. Ambrose is sustained in his views by the ex- 
tracts from Irenseus and Chrysostom. 



BAPTISM OF POLLUTION. 

Job 9:80, 31. 

"If I wash myself with snow-water, and make my hands 
never so clean, 

" Yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes 
shall abhor me." 



BAPTISM BY POLLUTION. 269 

Translation. 

KaX tots kv diafpOopa ftaizzias.i'; ps. 

"Even then thou wilt baptize me with pollution." — Aquila. 

Interpretation. 

There is no Patristic interpretation of this passage, as a 
baptism, so far as I know. The usage, here, shows that 
while the Greek appropriates the word to drunkenness and 
the Jew to purification, its sphere embraces, no less, sobriety 
and pollution. Adjuncts qualify. I have given the transla- 
tion of the passage, as it appears in the Greek version of the 
Hebrew Scriptures, by Aquila. His translation seems to have 
been governed more by the moral intent of the passage, than 
by its wording. Neither paiztiZto nor dta<pOopd is a verbal trans- 
lation of the Hebrew. Yet the spirit of the passage is well 
represented. Rosenmiiller states it thus: "Quantumvis me 
purum esse et innocentem ostendere voluero, Deus tamen 
me impurissimum et injustissimum ostendet (in loc.)." A 
condition " most impure and most unrighteous," is truly and 
forcibly represented by — "thou wilt baptize me with pollu- 
tion " — make me thoroughly polluted. 

It is unusual for the Classics to associate lv with the ele- 
ment within which a mersion takes place. And as it is 
quite common for Jewish writers to employ this preposition 
with a dative agency, I have regarded it as so used here. 

The Hebrew verb is used both for dipping and dyeing, 
or smearing. It is the same as employed in expressing the 
staining or smearing of Joseph's coat with* blood, and is 
there translated, in the Septuagint, by a word expressive of 
this latter sense, and not of a dipping. Introduction into a 
ditch or pit, containing mud and water, would very thor- 
oughly "smear with filth." 

The translation by the Septuagint is : 'fxavws lv pu-w p.s ipaicoaq. 
Here havwq seems to qualify rather an effect — that of smear- 
ing, than an act — that of dipping. The use of lv instead of 
els strengthens the conclusion, that the object was not to be 
dipped into filth, but to be polluted by it. 



270 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

BAPTISM OF DESTEUCTION. 
Psalm 9 : 15. 
"The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made." 

Translation. 



"Demersse sunt gentes in in teritu quern fecerunt." — Jerome^ 
ix, 1133. 

Interpretation. 

The Greek translator who here employs fta-rt'cu to repre- 
sent the Hebrew word, is unknown, but his translation is 
discriminatingly made. The Hebrew word is not the same 
with that which is, almost without exception, translated in 
the Septuagint by pdizza). 

The Hebrew has two words, b2Q and V2Q, more nearly 
resembling each other, both in form and in sound, than do 
fidxTco and /2a7rrttw. These Hebrew words present the same 
parallelism of differences, in their usage, with that exhibited 
by the Greek words, as also with that of the Latin words 
tin go and mergo, and the English w*ords dip and immerse. 

It is obvious that the word in this passage could not pos- 
sibly be represented by fidnrw^ or tingo, or dip. Such words 
not merely fail to represent the sentiment, but they misrep- 
resent it. They give a contradictory sentiment. What is 
intended to be profound, they make superficial ; what is in- 
tended to be thorough, they make trivial; what is intended 
to issue in a condition unlimited in time of continuance, 
they make evanescent as the execution of the form of an act. 
Jerome recognizes all this when he translates — " dernersse 
sunt in interitu — they were demersed in destruction" 

Gesenius, in speaking of the relation of this word to words 
in other languages, says: "The primary syllable is here D£), 
which, in the occidental languages, also has the signification 
of depth and of immersing. Compare the Gothic diup, the 
German tief, and the English deep." 

While the Hebrew, and the Greek, and the Latin, has 



BAPTISM OF DESTRUCTION. 271 

each two native words to express the two diverse ranges of 
thought, unhappily the English has not. The former lie- 
brew word, and the Greek pdnrw^ the Latin tingo, and the 
English dip, are as like to each other as though they were 
all Shaksperian Dromios. 

But when the latter Hebrew word is mated with $o.-tL%id and 
mergo, the English language cannot offer any like-featured, 
native-born Antilochus, as their counterpart. Hence the 
embarrassment of translating ^aitri^aj^ especially in some as- 
pects of its usage. To remedy this language-deficiency, we 
have borrowed a word from the Latin, and that, unfortu- 
nately, in a compound instead of a simple form. But, in 
borrowing a word, we cannot borrow its varied usage. That 
is made by the exigencies of a people. And it originates pe- 
culiarities of meaning among different nations, and among 
the same people in different ages, in the use of words having 
the same thought in their first use. Of all influences modi- 
fying the usage of words, none is more powerful than the 
religious conceptions of a people. And, of all religions, 
none can parallel the demand which must be made by a re- 
vealed religion introducing conceptions to which the minds 
of men, before, were strangers. Is it surprising, under these 
circumstances, that there should be some embarrassment in 
finding a perfect representation, in English, of a Greek word, 
borrowed out of heathenism, to denote Jewish religious con- 
ceptions, and then used to convey Christian religious thought, 
which in some respects was essentially diverse from the Jew- 
ish ? If we have found it necessary to enlarge the language 
of common life, by borrowing immerse from the Latin, is it 
strange that we should find no usage among us of this for- 
eign word which meets the religious application of the Greek 
word? And who should complain if, instead of forcing a 
new role of duty upon this Latin stranger, we should bor- 
row, again, for religious usage, baptize from the Greek? 

If, however, the theorists should persist in affirming, that 
"the suggestion of difficulty in the translation is all a pre- 
tence," we will maintain our equanimity by gazing on their 
desperate floundering amid dip, and plunge, and sink, and 



272 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

flow, and bathe, and whelm, immerse and immerge, demerge 
and submerge, and compassionately saying (sotto voce), "Poor 
sufferers, they are baptized in this dark abyss of words, find- 
ing no standing-place, because their mother tongue gave 
them no word to rest their foot upon !" 



BAPTISM OF SUFFEKING 
Psalm 69 : 1, 2. 

" Save me, O God! for the waters have come in unto my soul. 
"I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come 
into deep waters, where the floods overflow me." 

Translation. 

3 ' EfianTiadrjV slq aitepdvToix; xaTaduaett:, xai obx ear: crdatq. 
" I am baptized into boundless depths, and there is no standing. 
" I have come into the depths of the waters, and the flood has 
overflowed me." — Symmachus. 

'Eve-Kdyrjv eiq IXbv ftuOou . . . xai xazatyiq xartKovTiai fie. 

" 1 am brought into the mud of the abyss, and there is no stand- 
ing-place under me. 

"I have come into the depths of the sea, and a tempest has 
engulfed me." — Septuagint. 

" Infixus sum in limo profundi . . . et tempestas demersit me." 
"I am infixed in the mud of the deep, and there is no solid 

ground. I have come into the depth of the sea, and the tempest 

has demersed me." — Jerome, v, 468. 

Interpretation. 

The Hebrew word, with which we have to do in this pas- 
sage, is the same as in the passage just considered. It is, 
therefore, well represented by @aitTt£a>, It could, by no pos- 
sibility, be represented by fiamu). 

The Septuagint does not use paizrt'at in translating, but it 
repudiates pdnra> by employing a word which brings its ob- 
ject into a changed condition, where there is certainly every 



BAPTISM OF SUFFERING. 273 

opportunity for a complete influence to be exerted over it, 
and leaves it there. In other words, the substitute does every- 
thing which the principal would have done. It performs a 
baptism just as well as /Jarre'Cca could have done, and, in ad- 
dition, is so complaisant as to tell us how it was done, on 
which point ^aicriZat is ever dumb with silence. The mode 
used in this case is the same as that used by the theorists, 
who bring into the water their disciples, but who strangely 
say, that "this is not baptism, it is only immersion." And 
what is baptism? "Baptism is the dipping of the nobler 
part (head and shoulders), with invocation of the Trinity." 
Indeed ! I thought that the new version of the theory was, 
that "baptism was immersion, and that immersion was bap- 
tism;" but it seems that "immersion" has a non-religious 
meaning, "bringing" the more ignoble part of the body 
"into the water;" w T hile "baptism" has a religious mean- 
ing, bringing the more noble part of the human form into 
the water, by dipping and invocation. It seems then, after 
all, that the Latin-English word has a vulgar meaning, and 
that the Greek will find his way into the religious vocabulary. 
The translation by Jerome says nothing about the mode 
in which the baptism was accomplished; neither does he 
translate by mergo expressing condition; but he employs a 
word which gives position to the baptized object. This posi- 
tion j3d-ra) could never give, (for it can give " position " to 
nothing, as dipping is an unresting movement,) but paxziZuj 
(primary,) always gives position to its object together with 
condition, which position and condition are "fixed," as Je- 
rome says, until some foreign influence shall disturb them. 

Figure. 

Those friends of our3 who have been so often chidden for 
stretching out their dipping-wand toward every object in 
air, and earth, and sea, and under the sea, to transmute it 
into figure, may here feast on figure, unforbidden — should it 
prove to their liking. 

Dr. Carson, after waitiDg by the sea-coast twelve hours, 
watching the flow and reflow of its tidal waves, exclaims, 

18 



274 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

" Figure ! covered and bare, a dipping." David is now in 
a "covered" condition of baptism; he wishes to be made 
"bare." What help can the theory bring him? If he is 
undergoing a dipping merely, his "covering" will last but a 
moment. If he is dipped catachrestically by the ocean tide, 
he will be made " bare," certainly, in twelve hours. But 
David has gone down to the bottom of the sea, and he is 
there " infixed in its mud." Will it be of much comfort to 
say to such a one — "You are only baptized, and to baptize 
is to dip and nothing but dip through all Greek literature ; 
and to dip is to cover and make bare; therefore, don't be 
discouraged, you will soon be un-dipped." Whether these 
comforting words were drowned in the roaring of the stormy 
billows, or not, I cannot undertake to say; but they do not 
seem to have given David much comfort. In the anguish 
of his imperilled and helpless condition he cries, " Save me, 
God, for the waters have come in unto my soul ! " Because 
baptism in water is, of its own proper force, deadly, David 
employs it in figure to express his condition, by reason of 
troubles, as one that must speedily issue in his destruction, 
without Divine intervention. 

The theorist who would convert this baptism into a dip- 
ping must either transcend, beyond all measuring-lines, the 
wisdom of the Son of David, or fall so far below, that, — 
well, he should not use too hot words in " sending Gabriel to 
school," if that angel should modestly enter a caveat against 
a too dogmatic enunciation of " the theory." 



BAPTISM OF SINCERITY. 

Canticles 5 : 12. 

" His eyes are as the eyes of doves, by the rivers of waters, 
washed with milk and fitly set." 

Interpretation. 

" Baptizat in lacte Dominus, id est, in Sinceritate. Et isti 
sunt qui vere baptizantur in lacte, qui sine dolo credunt, et 



BAPTISM OF SINCERITY. 275 

puram fidem dcferunt, ut immaculatam induant gratiam. Ideo 
Candida Sponsa ascendit ad Christum; quia in lacte baptizata 
est." 

" The Lord baptizes with milk, that is, with Sincerity. And 
they are those who are truly baptized with milk, who believe 
without hypocrisy, and offer a pure faith, that they may put 
on unspotted grace. Therefore the Spouse ascends to Christ 
clothed in white, because she was baptized with milk." — Am- 
brose, ii, 1431. 

" Denique de ipsa anima dicitur: Qua? est hcec, quee ascendit 
dealbata (Cant. 8:5)? Antequam baptizaretur, ipsa est qua3 
dicebat: Nigra sum — Erat enim nigra, tenebrosa, peccatorum 
horrore deformis : sed postea . . . dealbata." . . . 

" Finally, it is said of the soul, itself: 'Who is this, that 
ascends made white V It is the same that said, before baptism, 
'I am black.' . . . For it was black, gloomy, and deformed by 
the dreadfulness of sin; but after that, having been cleansed by 
baptism, it merited the remission of sins; made white it ascends 
to Christ." — Ambrose, i, 875. 

Translation. 

I have translated " in lacte," with milk, 1. Because the 
Patrists use the preposition in this sense, times without 
number. 2. Because it is a baptism of the soul, and there- 
fore could not be " in milk." 3. Because the baptizer is the 
Lord, who never baptizes in milk, or in water, or in any other 
physical substance. 

The use of the term " milk" is purely formal, suggested 
by the use in the text, and is not designed to carry the 
thought over to a physical fluid, but to the " sincere milk of 
the word." Irenseus (931), speaking of the corrupters of 
divine truth, likens them to those who mix gypsum with 
water aud offer it for milk, deceiving through the similarity 
of color, and adds : " In Dei lacte gypsum male miscctur. 
It is a bad thing to mix gypsum (error) with God's milk 
(truth)." On the next page, Irenseus shows, most unmis- 
takably, the use of the preposition "in," as here translated. 

"In Christi, enim, nomine subauditur qui unxit, et ipse qui 
unctus est, et ipsa unctio in qua unctus est. Et unxit quidem 



276 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

Pater, unctus est vero Filius, in Spiritu, qui est unctio . . . 
significans et unguentem Patrem, et unctum Filium, et unc- 
tionem, qui est Spiritus." If it is contrary to all reason to 
say, that the Messiah was inducted into his Kingly, Priestly, 
and Prophetical offices, by being anointed in, and not with, 
the anointing oil — that the Father anointed the Son in, not 
with the Spirit — then it is " contrary to all reason " to deny 
that the usage claimed does truly exist. And here, as sug- 
gested by this anointing, I may quote a passage from a more 
modern writer, contained in a note in Cyril of Jerusalem 
(597) — "refert eos non in aqua, sed in oleo baptizasse. Id 
Priscillianistis in Hispania forsan peculiare — he relates that 
they baptized, not with water, but with oil. This, perhaps, 
was peculiar to the Priscillianists in Spain." If it is not 
likely that any persons dipped, or immersed, men and wo- 
men in oil (!), then it is likely that "in" means "with," 
and, rejecting water, these heretics were "baptized with 
oil." Besides, we are told (1075), that the Greek churches 
anointed the whole body with oil (ex oleo), while the Latin 
churches anointed only parts of the body, and, especially, 
" in Spain only the ears and the mouth — in Hispania aures et 
os." ISTow, I cannot say whether these " Spanish" heretics 
followed the practice of the Greek church, or of the Latin, in 
their use of oil in baptism, but in neither case would they 
find a dipping into oil. 

Interpretation. 

Milk is used (verbally) in this baptism as the fit symbol 
of sincerity. It is not employed because it was adapted for 
dipping, but because of its color ; just as snow is referred to 
in Scripture because of its whiteness. Milk could not be 
used because of its cleansing qualities ; for it is not so used 
in fact, nor is it, by its nature, adapted to such use. It is 
perfectly adapted by its uncolored color to represent unadul- 
terated sincerity. " The Lord baptizes with milk, that is 
with sincerity, into unspotted grace." In any case it will be 
observed, that this baptism is intended to set forth simply 
and solely a complete change of condition. This is strikingly 



BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE. 277 

set forth by Ambrose in the second quotation. Before this 
baptism the soul is " black," afterwards it i3 " made white." 
The Lord is the baptizer ; the absence of hypocrisy and the 
presence o'f a pure faith is the means, and the putting on of 
unspotted grace is the new, changed, baptized condition. 

This condition is not capable of being represented by an 
evanescent dipping, nor a momentary covering; but is of un- 
limited continuance. 

Whether " the Great Baptizer" employs " milk," or " the 
flaming sword," to effect his baptism, he brings all who are 
the subjects of it into a thoroughly changed condition, which, 
in its nature, has no limitation of time for its continuance, 
and which no foreign influence can change. Until some one 
can be found, mightier than he, to undo what he has done — 
able " to pluck those whom the Father has given him out 
of his hand " — the baptism of the Lord will bring his people 
into a condition of holy purity which shall never, no never, 
have an end. 



BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE. 
Isaiah 1 : 16, 17. 

" Wash ye, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings 
from before mine eyes ; cease to do evil ; 

"Learn to do well; seek judgment ; relieve the oppressed; 
judge the fatherless; plead for the widow." 

Interpretation. 

Aid too Xourpou, ouv ri t q ptravoXa'Z xat T7}$ yvwatcoq too Oeou, o . . . . 

o xpoyyopsos to fid-KTwp.a Ti yap 6<psko<; ixewou ^aiZTiaparoq^ 8 

.... Ma-riffOyTE Try 4' U '/Ji^ az ^ °PY*i'*) xa ^ ^"^ 

"Through the washing of repentance and of the knowledge 
of God, which was established on account of the transgression 
of the people of God, as Isaiah declares, we have believed and 
make known that this very baptism which he foreannounced is 
the only one able to cleanse the repenting; this is the water of 
life. 

"But the cisterns which you have dug out for yourselves are 



278 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

broken and are useless to you. For of what use is that baptism 
which cleanses the flesh and the body onlj- ? Baptize the soul 
from anger, and from covetousness, and from envy, and from 
hate, and behold the body is pure." — Justin Martyr, 504. 

Ka.6a)q (prjffiv c Haaiaq, Aoueafffa — v Idez, dyaTiTj-k, tzu>~ ■npoeiitev 6 -Kpcxprj-rrfi 
to too (3a7CTifffxa.Tos xaDdpaiov ; 

" As Isaiah says, ' Wash ye ' . Dost thou see, beloved, how 

the prophet declared beforehand the purifying character of this 
baptism ?" — Uippolytus, 860. 

" Lavamini, mundi estote. Pro superioribus victimis, et . . . . 
Evangelii mihi placet religio : ut baptizimini in sanguine meo per 
lavacrum regenerationis, quod solum potest peccata dimittere." 

" Wash ye, be clean. Instead of former victims, and burnt- 
offerings, and the fat of fed beasts, and the blood of bulls and 
of goats : and instead of incense, and new moons, the Sabbath, 
feast and fast days, Kalends and other solemnities, the religion 
of the Gospel pleases me; that ye may be baptized by my blood 
through the washing of regeneration, which alone can take away 
sins/' — Jerome, iv, 35. 

BAPTISM OF THE BODY AND OF THE SOUL. 

Two baptisms are here expressly mentioned by Justin : 
1. Baptism of the body. 2. Baptism of the soul. The theory 
remorselessly insists that the body must be dipped in fact, 
and that the soul must be dipped in imagination. For the 
word means nothing but dip and undergoes no change when 
used in figure. 

Carson says, (in capitals,) " My position is, that it always 

SIGNIFIES TO DIP; NEVER EXPRESSING ANYTHING BUT MODE" 

(p. 55). He also says (p. 57), " I undertake to prove it has 
but one meaning. I blame him for giving different mean- 
ings when there is no real difference in the meaning of this 
word. He assigns to it figurative meanings. I maintain 
that in figures there is no different meaning of the word. 
It is only a figurative application. The meaning of the word 
is always the same." Dr. Carson has got into such an in- 
veterate habit of boxing everybody's ears, that it is not at 
all strange that occasionally, his hand should be brought 



BAPTISM OF THE BODY AND OF THE SOUL. 279 

down somewhat heavily upon his own. Read alongside of 
the preceding, this, "Aristophanes says: 'Lest I dip you into 
a Sardian dye.* The figure is but low, and is just the same 
as if a pugilist with us should say, I will dip you in vermilion. 
It is an allusion to the dyer's art, and means I will beat you, 
till you shall be covered all over with your own blood. It would 
be to no purpose to allege that when a man is beaten, he is 
not literally dipped in his blood, but the blood runs over him. 
This would indicate a total misconception of the figure. The 
likeness does not consist in the manner but in the effects. 1 
will dip you in vermilion, is exactly the expression of the poet 
in English. He would be a sorry critic, who, from this, 
should allege that the English word dip signifies to run over, 
as blood from the wounded body." 

We had just been told that fia7rriZw means to dip, and that 
it and every other word in figure undergoes no change of 
meaning, but " the meaning is always the same." And now, 
in a case of declared figure, we have written down in obedience 
to the law, " dip," but only to have it scratched out by being 
told, that it is neither in the figure of fact or of imagination ; 
that in fact the action is "run over," and that "the meaning 
is I will beat you ;" and that while there is "allusion to the 
dyer's art," the dyer's act of dipping has nothing whatever 
to do with the interpretation. To introduce it would be 
"a total misconception of the figure." Now, if under this 
manipulation both of Dr. Carson's ears do not tingle, it must 
be because those side appendages are in his case missing. 

Self-contradiction as to theory and practice, could not be 
more gross. 

The passage exhibits the same gross errors of translation 
and of interpretation, (with the addition of self-contradic- 
tion,) with those of which he convicted Dr. Gale, and for 
which he pulled his ears so lustily. Gale says, the lake must 
be dipped in the blood of a frog, because my theory says, the 
word has but one meaning, and is the same literal or figura- 
tive. Carson flouts at the statement as an unheard of para- 
dox based on a misunderstanding of the word and the syntax. 
And yet, he falls into the same identical errors in misuuder- 



280 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

standing the word and the syntax ; and thus, is led by theory 
to introduce a dipping, while, with unparental hardness, he 
rejects his offspring as having no claim, even under the 
wildest imagination, to his sympathies. Under the influence 
of an impracticable case, the omnipresent dipping has dis- 
appeared, and in figure an act ceases to exist, and " the like- 
ness does not consist in the manner but in the effects" 

Dr. C.'s Ttp&rov (pebdoq does not consist in the position, that 
words in true and pure figure have the same meaning as in 
literal use, but in overlooking what he had pointed out to 
Gale, the secondary meaning of fidnrio. The remembrance 
of this would have saved him from the error of supposing 
that there was any figure in the passage. It would, also, 
have saved him from the necessity of violating syntactical 
law (Kuhner, p. 403) respecting a double accusative. And 
this would have saved him from misleading; the confiding 
English reader by the statement, "I will dip you in vermilion, 
is exactly the expression in English." The English counter- 
part of the Greek has in it neither a "dip" nor an "in," 
but is simply literal, "I will dye you a Sardian dye" or "I 
will color you a Sardian color." 

It is, precisely, these same errors which vitiate, from first 
to last, the writings of the theorists on the subject of bap- 
tism. They insist that /?o7tt& has but one meaning, that it 
has the same meaning in figurative as in literal use, and that 
all cases where there is no dipping in fact, must be cases of 
figure. But when they are pointed to cases where no dip- 
ping is conceivable by imagination, or the attempt intro- 
duces a picture so grotesque, that even their rhetorical sense 
is shocked, why then we are told (to the baldest stultifica- 
tion of their theory) " the likeness does not consist in the 
manner, but in the effects." What has a theory to do with 
" effects," whose alpha and omega is the performance of a 
naked act ? Is not the use of a word (expressive originally 
of an act) which is based on effects, a secondary and not a 
figurative use of such word? Is not /&frrr«>, to dye, based on 
the effects of pdizrw, to dip, and is not such use secondary and 
diverse from the former? And, yet, we are told that while 



BAPTISM OF THE BODY AND OF THE SOUL. 281 

fiaxriXa) means "to clip, and nothing but clip," and has a usage 
based on, not the act, but the effects of the act, still it has no 
secondary use, and " means nothing else, through all Greek 
literature, but dip, and nothing but dip." 

When Dr. Cox sought relief from the manner of Nebu- 
chadnezzar's dipping in the dew, he says: "It does not imply 
the manner in which the effect was produced, bat the effect 
itself; not the mode by which the body of the king was 
wetted, but its condition, as resulting from exposure to the 
dew of heaven." To this Carson (who assumes the office 
of whipping in his friends, when they overstep theory, and. 
enter the region of truth) replies: "About what is he con- 
tending? Without doubt, the verb expresses mode here as 
well as anywhere else. To suppose the contrary, gives up 
the point at issue, as far as mode is concerned. ... It does 

not literally include wetting, at all Mode is as much 

expressed here as it is in the commission of our Lord to his 
apostles." Thus, dip, which literally expresses no "effect" 
— not even the "wetting," when it carries its object into 
water — but merely a naked act, and which, in figure, means 
nothing, more or less, still, in figure, is to be understood as 
laying aside all "manner," and to be interpreted solely by 
its "effects!" 

This teacher of Gale, and Cox, and the Archangel Gabriel, 
is a study. 

The "flesh and body" baptism, of which Justin speaks, 
is called "baptism," not because of resemblance of any act 
performed in its accomplishment to any other act done, but 
because of resemblance to certain classes of baptism charac- 
terized by controlling influence. This influence proceeded 
from the ritual use of the blood of bulls and goats, and the 
ashes of a heifer, and effected a Judaic baptism — the com- 
plete ceremonial purification of the body. 

The "soul" baptism was not limited to the Jew. It was 
preached to the Jew, as Justin declares, by Isaiah, but it 
reaches over to the Christian. The " Martyr " says that he 
had received this baptism "through (Sid) the washing of re- 
pentance and the knowledge of God." Repentance and the 



282 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

knowledge of God do this washing. Such agencies do thor- 
ough work. They patronize no dipping-bath. They thor- 
oughly change the condition of the soul — as soap, a rough 
towel, and. hard friction, change that of the body — "wash- 
ing it from anger, and covetousness, and envy, and. hate." 
And this thoroughly changed condition, is baptism of the 
soul, to which Isaiah calls the Jew. 

This baptism, " by repentance and the knowledge of God," 
leads to the notice of the essential difference between bap- 
tism in, and baptism by y anything. The former phrase is 
expressive of local position, the latter is expressive only of 
complete influence. To illustrate : "A greasy fleece is dip- 
ped in a dye-vat, but it is not dipped by it." Is there any 
contradiction here ? Does not the difference of phraseology 
clearly indicate a different sense in the words? The first 
dip announces the form of act by which the object is put 
into the dye, and the second one declares that the object 
was not influenced by the dye. This was the phraseology 
used by the Greeks, and was as intelligible to them as 
"dipped in, but not dyed by," would be to us. Christian 
missionaries are said "to live immersed in the sins of hea- 
thenism, but not to be immersed by them." The one expres- 
sion is exhausted by expressing position without influence, 
and the other, influence without position. These truths 
may be stated in a reverse form. The hand may be dipped 
by (the juice of a berry), and not be dipped in (the juice of a 
berry). A man may be immersed by sin (solitary vice), and 
not be immersed in sin (iniquity abounding). Hot iron may 
be immersed (quenched) by water, and not be immersed in 
w T ater. A man may be baptized (intusposition) in wine, and 
not be baptized (made drunk) by wine. A man may be bap- 
tized (made drunk) by wine, and not be baptized (intusposi- 
tion) in wine. 

These diversities of phraseology are constantly met with 
in the Classics. And it is as certain that they express dif- 
ferences of meaning, as that words are used to express 
thought, and not, according to the Prince Bishop of Autun, 
"to hide thought." 



BAPTISM OF THE BODY AND OF THE SOUL. 283 

Jerome well understood this distinction, when he speaks, 
in the quotation made, of baptism by the blood of Christ — 
ut baptizimini in sanguine meo. "In," being here used, as 
in numberless cases, with the agency. Had all the scoffing 
murderers of the Crucified been baptized in his blood (as a 
fluid element), they would none tbe more have been bap- 
tized by bis blood (received with "repentance and the knowl- 
edge of God "), which cleanses from all sin. 

A word or two, before leaving this passage, with reference 
to the special evidence Dr. C. draws from it for a dipping. 
" He speaks of baptism as cleansing the flesh and the body 
only; this shows that the water was applied to the body in 
general" (p. 490). So far from showing the manner or ex- 
tent of using water, it does not show the use of water at all. 
Justin is speaking of Jewish rites as only competent to effect 
the ceremonial purification of the body, leaving the soul un- 
purified. He refers to the sprinkling of blood, or heifer 
ashes, or any other thing competent to induce this condition. 
There was no dipping of the body into water enjoined by 
Jewish ritual law. Nothing is more certain than that, in 
Jewish rites, a sprinkling cleansed the entire "flesh and 
body." An argument is drawn from the mention of cis- 
terns: " He speaks of it, also, as referring to cisterns or pits, 
as trenches that are dug. It must, then, have been an im- 
mersion." This is another of those marvellous errors of 
conception and representation, to which a wrong theory con- 
stringes its disciples. 

When Jehovah, by Jeremiah, says: "My people have com- 
mitted two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living 
waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that 
can hold no water," does he complain that they have " dug 
pits and trenches to dip themselves in, but which have failed 
of their purpose because the bottom had fallen out?" Just 
as certainly as that Justin means any such thing by his ref- 
erence to this passage. Jehovah is "the fountain of living 
waters," not to dip in, but whence the soul may derive bless- 
ing, even life for evermore; while human devices, or divinely 
appointed ritual rites, abused, in being used for other purposes 



284 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

than those designed, are " broken cisterns," to which men 
apply, in vain, for blessing which accompanies salvation. 

The Lord and his "Martyr" teach the same thing: Jew- 
ish rites, at the best, can bnt effect ceremonial purification; 
it is " the water of life " (repentance and the knowledge of 
God) which " baptizes the soul from anger, covetousness, 
envy, and hate." Justin has no reference to a dry dipping 
in a "broken" cistern; although Dr. Carson thinks that all 
Israel received a " dry baptism " in passing through the sea. 



BAPTISM BY INIQUITY. 
Isaiah 21 : 4. 

"My heart panted, fearfulness affrighted: the night of my 
pleasure hath he turned into fear unto me." 

Septuagint. 



TTjxev elq (poftov. 

"My heart wanders; iniquity baptizes me; my soul is put 
into fear." 

BAPTISM BY INIQUITY. 

This passage has presented no little embarrassment to the 
translator and interpreter, because of want of verbal accord 
with the Hebrew, and because of a failure in the just appre- 
ciation of the word. 

Dr. Edward Williams translates, "Iniquity pours me." 
Translation by this modal word must, like modal dip, fail 
through lack of support in usage. Prof. Ewing says: "The 
subject of baptism is viewed as having something poured or 
brought upon him." 

Gale, Halley, Wilson, Stuart, and others, translate, "Ini- 
quity overwhelms me." Conant, "Iniquity whelms me." 

This wide consent to the introduction of "overwhelm" as 
the translation of a certain class of baptisms must have sub- 



BAPTISM BY INIQUITY. 285 

stantial ground to rest upon. Be that ground, however, 
what it may, it can have most obviously no sympathy with 
a dipping. 

The theorists do not translate such cases by " immerse," 
because its primary meaning does not answer; and because 
its secondary meaning, to be earnestly engaged, as, " I am so 
immersed in business that I can attend to nothing else," 
answers just as badly. "Immerse" has no well-established 
secondary usage expressive of a controlling influence im- 
parted. In this respect it fails in parallelism with the Greek 
word. " Overwhelm " has a secondary meaning derived from 
primary use which adapts it, in the absence of a more per- 
fect word, for use in such cases. Still, as overwhelm and 
fidKTi'w do not represent the same form of thought in primary 
use, so, neither do they in the derived, secondary use. The 
object which is placed by the Greek word in a condition of 
intusposition is the quiet and unresisting recipient of in- 
fluence from the encompassing medium, which seeks to in- 
terpenetrate it at all points. An object which is overwhelmed 
is brought into that condition, only, in consequence of its 
resistance (active or passive) having been overcome by some 
assailing agency. In accordance with these elements the 
Greek word, in secondary use, is expressive of the reception 
of influence which controls condition; while the English 
w T ord, in secondary use, carries with it an assailing power 
which triumphs by overcoming resistance, active or passive. 

Hannibal overcame all difficulties, and came over the 
Alps. Is " overcame," here, used in figure, or does it ex- 
press thought directly? The swollen river whelmed over 
the bridge and overwhelmed the structure. Is this tautol- 
ogy? Is not the thought in "overwhelmed" essentially 
diverse from that in "whelmed over?" In the latter, the 
sentiment is exhausted by the physical condition of the 
bridge as covered by the rising and flowing waters; in the 
former word there is nothing to do with the covered con- 
dition of the bridge, except as a means to an end; and that 
which the other word throws not a ray of light upon, (the 
effect produced on the structure,) this states, and it is all 



286 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

which it states. This is its meaning. A meaning which the 
other form had not. And it is a meaning which has a life 
of its own, and is capable of being applied in any suitable 
case where there is no whelming flood present or conceiv- 
able. As, " the blow overwhelmed me." 

" The troops came whelming over the ramparts and over- 
whelmed all opposition." " Whelming" is, here, clearly fig- 
ure; the resemblance of men thronging upon, rising above, 
and passing over walls, to flowing waters rising above and 
flowing over obstacles, is clear and vivid. On the other 
hand, it is just as certain that " overwhelmed" is not figure ; 
but expresses, directly, an effect wholly different in nature 
from the other. The resistance made by the garrison is not 
represented as overcome by a flood; but by the fighting 
after the walls were flooded by the troops. Napoleon was 
over-mastered, over-come, over-thrown, over-powered, over- 
whelmed, at Waterloo, by English and Prussian power. 
Each of these words expresses a thought directly without 
picture figure, and generically the same thought, to wit, a 
resisting power subdued by a stronger power. In each case 
there is a coloring from the source whence the word springs; 
but each has a meaning distinct from its original. 

" Overwhelm" represents ^a-xi^oi in its controlling power, 
but not in its shade-color of resistance overcome. The Greek 
word, in this respect, belongs to the class of words repre- 
sented by steep, imbue, &c. The influence which it exerts is 
quiet in its operation, penetrating in its nature, pervading 
in its extent, and controlling in its power. 

Those friends of the theory who, in this baptism of in- 
iquity, turn coldly away from " dip," and have no friendly 
recognition even for a " transient covering," but call lustily 
on overwhelm to come to their help, ought certainly to aban- 
don or reconstruct their conceptions of a word which stands 
them so little in stead in the time of need. Dr. Carson, 
however, has not lost a jot of courage or confidence. His 
exposition of this baptism, laid alongside of " my position," 
leads one to marvel at the mental phenomenon presented. 

This is his language (p. 86): "The expression, iniquity 



BAPTISM BY INIQUITY. 287 

'baptizeth me,' does not mean that iniquity comes on him 
either by popping or dipping, either by pouring or sprinkling: 
but that his sin, which originated in himself, and never was 
put on him in any mode, sunk him in misery. Our iniquities 
cause us to sink in deep waters. This example is, with all 
others in which the word occurs, whether in its literal or 
figurative use, completely in our favor. Iniquity is the bap- 
tizer, and instead of popping the subjects of its baptism, 
would sink them eternally in the lake that burnetii with fire 
and brimstone, were they not delivered by that which is 
represented in the baptism of Christians." 

If Dr. Carson had repeated the Multiplication Table back- 
wards in proof of — " My position is, that it always signi- 
fies to dip; never expressing anything but mode/' — "I 
maintain, that in figures there is no different meaning of 
the word," — it would have been as creditable to him intel- 
lectually, and less damaging to his cause logically. For, to 
say that 12 times 12 making 144 proves, that " [iar.xi^ui signifies 
to dip both in fact and in figure," is only to adduce strangely 
irrelevant proof; but to adduce, as proof that fia-xi'w means 
to dip, a case in which it is declared to mean "to sink," is to 
bring not irrelevant testimony, but simple and absolute dis- 
proof. And to adduce in proof of a dipping (" covered and 
bare "), the " sinking of souls eternally in the lake that burnetii 
with fire and brimstone," can only make the world stare at 
the vagaries of a distraught intellect. 

Interp)r elation. 

The general interpretation of this passage must be regu- 
lated by the capture of Babylon, to which it relates. And 
particular words or phrases may receive valuable light from 
particular facts of that transaction. There is no fact in the 
case which the divine record places in such bold relief as 
Belshazzar's feast; that was the crowning "iniquity" in 
which Jehovah was blasphemed and defied. And in that 
feast its culmination presents to view a royal figure gazing 
on the wall — "his countenance changed, his thoughts troub- 
ling, the joints of his loins loosed, and his knees smiting 



288 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

one against another," — bis sins have found him out, and 
" iniquity is baptizing him" with dire alarm. 

The prophet is understood to speak as a Babylonian. And 
whom could he so aptly represent as the King of the Baby- 
lonians ? And what language could more literally set forth 
the condition of Belshazzar, as he is passing through his 
baptism, in gazing upon the writing and hearing its inter- 
pretation, than that of the prophet, — " My loins are filled 
with pain; pangs have taken hold upon me ; I was dismayed 
at the seeing of it? " This is the baptism of Iniquity. " Con- 
science makes cowards of all." And on " that night in which 
he was slain," conscience, aroused by the Spirit of that God 
against whom " he had lifted up himself," causeth his in- 
iquities to take hold upon him, and he is baptized with un- 
utterable terror. To introduce here a dipping, or sinking 
in deep waters, is impertinent bathos. 

As the Septuagint differs wholly {ad verbwn, yet not ad 
sensum) from the Hebrew, it gives fit occasion to point out 
the unreliability of Dr. Carson's principle in interpreting 
the language of the Septuagint used in connection with the 
baptism of JSTaaman. He says, (p. 315,) " That the Greek 
word signifies dip, is clear from the fact that this is the mean- 
ing of the word in the original." The meaning of the word 
in the original of the passage under consideration is affright, 
and the translation is ^aTzxi^m. "Will Dr. C. vindicate his rea- 
soning by saying, " That the Greek word signifies affright, 
is clear from the fact that this is the meaning of the word in 
the original?" The theorists throw their mantle of univo- 
calism over a great many words on which it fits but queerly ; 
is this one of them ? 

Identity of meaning between original and translated words 
is a sandy principle for a controversialist to build upon. 

While this passage declares that dip and transient cover- 
ing have neither part nor lot in it, it declares, as unmistak- 
ably^ that completeness of condition is exhaustive of its thought 
to the very last element. 

Iniquity baptizes, — i. e., brings me into a complete con- 
dition of "terror" as shown by the case, and the context. 



RED SEA BAPTISM. 289 

Very similar in form is, "Potatio quse mergit" — "The drink 
which merges," brings into a complete condition "of drunk- 
enness." Neither " iniquity" nor "wine" dips its subjects 
into water, shallow or deep. 

The true usage of /Jara'Co* destroys the theory as utterly as 
if it were sunk eternally in that lake of which Dr. Carson 
speaks. 



BAPTISM AND MIEACLE. 

"We come now to the consideration of a very interesting 
group of baptisms. They are caused by, or accompanied 
with, divine power miraculously displayed. In no one of 
them, is there either a " dipping " or a " temporary cover- 
ing." In all of them there is a controlling influence, effect- 
ing a complete change of condition, characterized by indef- 
initely prolonged continuance : this latter feature being as 
essential to the conception of a baptism as the former; while 
modal action, as such, of any kind, never, under any circum- 
stances, has anything to do with effecting a baptism. The 
presence or absence of any particular form of action is, alike, 
a matter of indifference. These baptisms leave " the theory " 
a perfect caput moriuum. 



BED SEA BAPTISM. 
Exodus 14 : 19, 21, 28, 31.. 

11 And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, 
removed and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud went 
from before their face, and stood behind them. 

"And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the 
Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that 
night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. 

"And the waters returned and covered the chariots and the 
horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea 
after them; there remained not so much as one of them. 

19 



290 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

" And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon 
the Egyptians; and the people feared the Lord and believed the 
Lord and his servant Moses." 

Interpretation. 

"Deinde legimus quia in virtute sua magna, et brachio suo 
excelso, populum suum de terra iEgypti liberavit, quando tra- 
dnxit eum per mare Eubrum, in quo fecit figura baptismatis." 

"Afterward we read that by his great power and his high 
arm, he liberated his people from the land of Egypt, when he 
led them through the Eed Sea, in which was a figure of bap- 
tism." — Ambrose, i, 867. 

"Deniqueet ipse Moyses dicit in cantico: 'Misisti Spiritum 
suum, et aperuit eos mare/ (Exod. 15 : 10.) Advertis quod in 
illo Hebrseorum transitu jam tunc sacri baptismatis figura prae- 
cesserit, in quo iEgyptius interiit, et Hebraeus evasit. Quid 
enim aliud in hoc quotidie sacramento docemur, nisi quia culpa 
mergitur et error aboletur; pietas autem et innocentia tuta per- 
mansit." 

"Finally, even Moses himself says in his song: 'Thou didst 
send forth thy Spirit and opened for them the sea/ (Ex. 15 : 10.) 
Observe that in that passage of the Hebrews, even then, a fig- 
ure of sacred baptism went before, in which the Egyptian per- 
ished and the Hebrew escaped. For what else, in this daily 
sacrament do we teach, except that sin is drowned and error 
destroyed; while piety and innocence remain safe." — Ambrose, 
iii, 393. 

"In mari autem Eubro figuram istius baptismatis extitisse ait 
Apostolus, dicens: 'Quia patres nostri omnes baptizati sunt in 
nube et in mari/ (I Cor. 10:1, 2.) Et subdidit: 'Hsec autem 
omnia in figura facta sunt illis (v. 6); illis in figura, sed nobis in 
veritate/ " 

"But the Apostle declares that a figure of this baptism shows 
itself in the Eed Sea, saying: 'That all our fathers were bap- 
tized by the cloud and by the sea.' (I Cor. 10 : 1, 2.) And 
added : 'But all these things were done to them in figure (v. 6); 
to them in figure, but to us in reality/ " — Ambrose, iii, 423. 

" Tenebat virgam Moyses, et ducebat populum Hebrseorum 
in nocte, in columna lucis, in die, in columna nubis. Columna 



RED SEA BAPTISM. 291 

lucis quid est, nisi Christus Dominus At vero columna 

nubis est Spiritus sanctus. In mari erat populus, et praeibat 
columna lucis; deinde sequebatur columna nubis, quasi umbra- 
tio Spiritus Sancti. Yides quod per Spiritum Sanctum et per 
aquani typum baptismatis demonstraverit." 

"Moses held the rod, and led the Hebrew people by night, 
with the pillar of light; by day, with the pillar of cloud. The 
pillar of light, what is it, but Christ the Lord. . . . But, indeed, 
the pillar of cloud is the Holy Spirit. The people were in the 
sea, and the pillar of light went before; then followed the pillar 
of cloud, the shadowing, as it were, of the Holy Spirit. Thou 
seest that by the Holy Spirit and by the water, a type of bap- 
tism may have been exhibited." — iii, 424. 

"Qui non fuisti memor indignationis tuse: sed sicut in mari 
mersisti omnes iniquitates nostras, sicut iEgyptium plumbum. 
.... Quod potest et ad baptismum referri, quo iEgyptius mer- 
gitur, Hebraeus resurgit." . . . 

" "Who hast not been mindful of thy displeasure; but, as in the 
sea, thou hast drowned all our iniquities, like Egyptian lead. 
.... Which may also be referred to baptism, whereby the 
Egyptian is drowned and the Hebrew rises again." — iii, 1240. 

" Filii igitur Israel, ut Pharaonem et iEgyptios evaderent, per 
medium sicci maris transierunt, et aquaa eis erant quasi pro muro 
a dextris et a sinistris. Similiter et populus gentium, ut diabolum 
omnesque ejus satellites evaderent, per aquam baptismatis tran- 
sierunt. Et qui antea erant filii diaboli, ex aqua et Spiritu 
Sancto, qui per columnam ignis designabatur, renati effecti sunt 
filii Dei. Aqua ergo maris filios Israel salvavit. Pharaonem 
vero cum omnibus satellitibus suis necavit; quia aqua baptis- 
matis imaginem Dei salvat, peccata quibus servierat, extinguit; 
diabolus autem unicuique, extinguitur, qui eum fideliter cum 
omnibus pompis ejus abrenuntiat. 

" Aqua) vero quae pro muro eis erant, a dextris et a sinistris 
fidem designabant nostram, quam in baptismati percipimus, quae 
murus est noster ex utraque parte defendens nos et ab invisibili- 
bus hostibus et a visibilibus." 

"The children of Israel, therefore, that they might escape 
Pharaoh and the Eyptians, passed through the midst of the dry 



292 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

sea, and 'the waters were to them as a wall on the right hand 
and on the left.' In like manner the people of the Gentiles, 
that they might escape the devil and his satellites, have passed 
through the water of baptism. And they who, formerly, were 
children of the devil, born again by water and the Holy Spirit, 
(who was signified by the pillar of fire,) are made the sons of 
God. The water, therefore, of the sea saved the children of 
Israel. But it slew Pharaoh with all his servants. Because the 
water of baptism saves the likeness of God and destroys the sins 
which it served ; but the devil is destroyed to every one who 
faithfully renounces him with all his pomps. 

" But the waters which were to them as a wall on the right 
hand and on the left, designate our faith which we receive in 
baptism ; which is our wall, on either side, defending us from 
enemies invisible and visible/' — iv, 827. 

'H dk MXa.G(T7) xai ^ veyiXr) xpbq pkv rb Ttapbv eiq -niartv hrje did rr t q 
xara-rrX^sioq' Tipbq dk to [xiXXov wq rbizoq rijV laophtfj %dptv TtpovTzeaij- 
liaivs. 

" But the sea and the cloud, at that time, induced faith through 
amazement ; but, as a type, it signified, for the future, the grace 
that should be after." — Basil Magnus, iv, 124. 

To dcd Trjq SaXdffffrjq xdi xr t q ve<piXrjq. 

"That baptism which is by the cloud and sea." — John of Da- 
mascus, i, 261. Paris, 1712. 

Td dk odara, p-eGirebaavra rw Xaip ttjv acydXetav, kdrjXou rb fid~ri(T/ia' 
xai 110.60. dk i) UTzoteGiq rrjq dnb AiyuTZTtoo auraiv odou, rbnoq r t v z^q iv z<p 
j3a.7tTi(T l u.aTt o~(jt)T7]piaq. . . . Mwv<jr t q dk } tuttov k<pepev rou Xptaxov. 

11 The waters, securing safety for the people, signify baptism. 
.... And the whole material of their journey from Egypt was 
a type of the salvation by baptism. . . . But Moses himself was 
a type of Christ." — JDidymus Alex., 696. 

A BAPTISM WITHOUT USE OF THE WORD. 

The historical narrative furnished ns in Exodus of the 
passage of the children of Israel through the divided sea, 
and of the drowning of Pharaoh and the Egyptians attempt- 
ing to follow after thern, does not furnish us with any word 



RED SEA BAPTISM. 293 

equivalent to Paizri'w ; nor does the Septuagint use it in its 
version. 

But that a haptism did take place on this occasion, is ac- 
cepted hy all hy reason of the statement of the Apostle Paul 
in I Cor. 10 : 2. 

On the form and nature of this baptism there is a wide 
diversity of opinion. 

It will be both interesting and instructive, to consider the 
different notions of baptism, held by various parties, as they 
are brought into contact in the attempt to resolve this his- 
torical transaction into a baptism. 

Three styles of baptism are claimants for our favor : 1. That 
of the Theorists; 2. That of the Patrists; 3. That of the 
Apostle. 

The nature of these several claims, with their sustaining 
evidences, will be considered in their order. 

RED SEA BAPTISM OF THE THEORISTS. 

" The passage of the children of Israel through the Red 
Sea is figuratively called a baptism from its external resem- 
blance to the ordinance, and from being appointed to serve 
a like purpose as well as to figure the same thing. Here 
(I Cor. 10 : 2) they are said to have been baptized. There 
can be no doubt, therefore, that there is in their passage 
through the sea, something that represents both the external 
form and the purpose of Christian baptism. It was a real 
immersion — the sea stood on each side, and the cloud covered 
them. But it was not a literal immersion in water, in the 
same way as Christian baptism. It is, therefore, figuratively 
called by the name of the Christian ordinance, because of 
external similarity, and because of serving the like purpose 
as well as figuring the same event. 

" The going down of the Israelites into the sea, their being 
covered by the cloud, and their issuing out on the other side, 
resembled the baptism of believers, served a like purpose as 
attesting their faith in Moses as a temporal Saviour, and 
figured the burial and resurrection of Christ and Christians 
as well as Christian baptism. . . . Surely there is no strain- 



294 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

ing to see in this fact something that may darkly shadow a 
burial. . . . The baptism of Pentecost and of the Israelites 
in the Red Sea were dry baptisms." 

Dr. Carson either writes very enigmatically or very self- 
contradictorily. He tells us that this passage of the Israel- 
ites was " a real immersion," and, therefore, according to 
his remarkable use of words, a real dipjnng; and therefore, 
still farther, according to his postulation, a baptism. But 
having created this real (?) baptism at the demands of theory, 
he very promptly, by reason of necessity in another direc- 
tion, disrobes it of the real habiliment and enrobes it in the 
dress of figure. " It is figuratively called a baptism." One 
baptism may be typical of another baptism. But a real bap- 
tism cannot get its name from anything but its own reality. 
If the passage of the Israelites was a real baptism it takes 
its name from its own inherent character, and not as "a 
figure of the Christian ordinance." 

Dr. C. also writes with a free and easy assumption, and 
undertakes to tell us what is the divine appointment without 
showing any commission on which is written — "Thus saith 
the Lord." " It is called a baptism from its external resem- 
blance to the ordinance, and from being appointed to serve 
a like purpose as well as to figure the same thing." The 
writer is at liberty to imagine an " external resemblance to 
the ordinance" and to make out such resemblance as well 
as he can ; but he is not at liberty to say, that God has "ap- 
pointed " this Israel itish, passage " to serve a like purpose 
and to figure the same thing " as Christian baptism, without 
putting his finger on the record made by higher authority 
than his own. 

But what is the resemblance which he traces ? This, — 
" the going down of the Israelites into the sea, their being 
covered by the cloud, and their issuing out on the other 
side, resembled the baptism of believers." That is to say, 
" the going down" and "the issuing out" "resemble" 
the act of dipping into water — covered and bare — our old 
friends of the sea-coast beyond the pillars of Hercules. The 
faculty for tracing a resemblance between such things re- 



RED SEA BAPTISM. 295 

minds us of the sea story of one of our distinguished country- 
men in which he represents the commander, after looking 
through his glass at a vessel in the far-off distance, as saying 
to an African sailor by his side, that "lie thought it was a 
church," and "old Scip" promptly replied, that he thought 
so too. 

If Dr. Carson would try his fellow-theorists who see with 
him a marked resemblance to a " dipping," by adding — 
"Xow, I think it is a church," he probably would hear them 
respond with all alacrity — "And we think so too !" 

But what "purpose " is this passage "appointed to serve?" 
As " attesting their faith in Moses as a temporal Saviour." 
Now, so far from this passage being appointed to give testi- 
mony to the faith which they had in Moses, it was appointed 
for the very opposite reason ; namely, because they had not 
faith in Moses, and to the end that such faith might be be- 
gotten and established. Let us take the guidance not of 
theories but of the word of God. Standing on the hither 
side of the sea, Israel, sore afraid and full of unbelief, said 
unto Moses, "Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast 
thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore 
hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt ? 
Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, 
Let us alone, that w T e may serve the Egyptians ? For it had 
been better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should 
die in the wilderness." (Exod. 14 :• 11, 12.) As a result of 
this miraculous passage and deliverance we are told, as they 
stand securely on the farther side, their enemies all slain, — 
" And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon 
the Egyptians : and the people feared the Lord, and believed 
the Lord, and his servant Moses." (v. 31.) Thus the statement 
of the end for which this baptism was appointed, — namely, 
to show the faith which they already had in Moses, is in the 
most absolute contradiction to Scripture statement. We 
are told, most expressly, that before the passage they had 
no faith in Moses; and we are told, as expressly, that after 
the passage they had faith in him; and the cause by which 
unbelief wa3 removed and belief was established, was their 



296 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

" seeing the Egyptians dead upon the sea-shore/' and " the 
great work which the Lord had done." 

Now, unless the theory will openly set aside the word of 
God, this " appointment to show, by their baptism, their 
faith in Moses as a temporal saviour" is disposed of. 

But we are farther told, that this baptism is appointed "to 
figure the burial and resurrection of Christ and Christians." 
That is to say; the march of two million men, women and 
children, with flocks and herds innumerable, through the di- 
vided sea, " figures the burial of Christ and Christians," while 
the landing on the farther side amid bleating sheep and low- 
ing oxen " figures the resurrection." To oppose all this I 
confess myself unable to put my finger upon any ipsissima 
verba of Scripture. Revelation is designed to correct error 
and to establish truth. But it does not occupy itself with 
the empty fantasies or grotesque eccentricities of the human 
intellect. All I can say is, that this resurrection of Israel 
from the Red Sea burial, richly laden with all the spoils of 
Egypt, does not bear a very striking "resemblance" to the 
Scripture, which says, "We brought nothing into this world, 
and it is certain that we can carry nothing out." 

So much for the name, and the resemblance, and the pur- 
pose, and the figure of this Red Sea baptism according to 
the theory. 

Let us, now, look at it in some other points of view. 

1. How is this baptistery constructed? What is the depth 
of that burial-place " down" into which these walk? Facts 
say, that the bottom of the sea was but little lower than the 
shore ; not more than would allow a company on horseback 
to ride (as has been done) a considerable distance into the 
water. The "going down "into this abyss, therefore, fur- 
nished but a shallow grave. But the lofty water-walls may 
make up for the shallowness of the sea, and by inclosing 
and outtopping constitute an immersion for these millions 
with their flocks and herds. How lofty these water-walls 
were the Scripture does not say. There is no good reason 
to believe that they were any higher than the natural depth 
of the sea. There is good reason for believing that they 



RED SEA BAPTISM. 297 

were not so high as the natural depth of the sea. The 
waters were divided by the blowing of the wind. If a 
miracle did not intervene to prevent it, the excess of waters 
would flow away, as they were displaced by the wind, and 
not become piled up in a heap. We are told that a mir- 
acle did arrest the down-flowing waters of the Jordan. 
"We are not told of any such miracle at the Red Sea. We 
have no right to make miracles for ourselves. The most, 
then, that we are justified in affirming as to the height of 
these water-walls is the natural depth of the sea. But at 
what distance do these walls stand from each other ? We 
are not told that any miracle was wrought to help these 
Israelites as to their speed. We must, therefore, allow 
enough of space between these walls for the ordinary march 
of two million men, women, and children, incumbered with 
flocks and herds, and tents and household goods. Now, 
within a very limited space it would be impossible, a few 
abreast, to cross this sea within a night. These millions, 
with flocks and herds, &c, &c, could not be put into march- 
ing condition with a less front than one mile, and make the 
passage. They would, then, extend back for five miles. It 
is more probable that these water-walls were five miles dis- 
tant from each other than that they were only half a mile 
distant. But whether one mile or Hve apart, what show, 
for the immersion of millions, would water-walls twenty 
feet, more or less, high make ? 

But if the sea be shallow and the walls be low and afar, 
may not the baptistery be effectively completed by its cloud- 
roof? Is there not, at least, herein that vital element to an 
immersion — a covering? Dr. Carson evidently thinks so, 
and insists upon it with that positiveness and tenacity which 
might be expected from one who did not regard the Angel 
Gabriel as his peer on this matter of dipping. What evi- 
dence does he bring to show that a cloud-roof rested on these 
water-walls during the passage of Israel making an immer- 
sion baptistery? Why he points to two prepositions (£-<) 
and b) used by Paul, without showing that they meet to- 
gether on this occasion, and without any such statement 



298 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

by the Apostle. And against what proof to the contrary is 
this adduced? Why against the statement by Moses, as 
explicit as language is capable of, that there was no cloud 
covering Israel during their passage. This is his statement : 
" And the angel of G-od, which went before the camp of 
Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the 
cloud went from before their face and stood behind them." 
(Ex. 14 : 19.) This was before the passage began. " And it 
(the pillar of cloud) came between the camp of the Egyptians 
and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to 
them ; but it gave light by night to these: so that the one 
came not near the other all the night." We have here, 1. A 
definite position to the cloud. Not resting on the water- 
walls of the theoretic baptistery, but between the camps of 
Egypt and Israel. 2. The time of its continuance in that 
position. It was through the entire night, — "so that the 
one came not near the other all the night." 3. The func- 
tions of the cloud through that night. To invest with pre- 
ternatural darkness the camp of Egypt, and to illumine the 
passage of Israel. 

The cloud, then, was engaged in other duties, that night, 
than in a participation in the dipping — immersion — burial 
— resurrection — march — baptism — of Israel. But will these 
statements of Moses have any influence with the theorists, to 
induce them to take down their Red Sea baptistery? Surely 
not. Have they not studied the prepositions ? Do they not 
know the meaning of PaitriZo) ? Is it not the easiest word in 
the Greek language to translate? Does it not always mean 
dip, and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature? 
Why should they, who know so much, yield to Moses, who 
was only an eye-witness and prime actor in the scene, and 
inspired of God to write the record? "Either the persons 
referred to were immersed, on the occasions mentioned, or 
the inspired writer testifies a falsehoods (Carson, p. 397.) And 
who dare mutter or peep after the inspired writer has been 

notified to utter the shibboleth, or to be branded as a . 

I will take the warning, at least so far as to say nothing 
more on this point. 



RED SEA BAPTISM. 299 

2. Let us lay objection aside, and suppose the baptistery 
to be constructed after the Carson model. What is it worth, 
as to its baptizing power? Where is the element into which 
the baptism takes place ? Confessedly there is none. There 
is but empty space between the walls and roof. It is a mat- 
ter for admiration that this empty space was not filled with 
that " east wind," seeing that the wind, or the sound like 
wind, was employed for dipping the Apostles at Pentecost. 
But somehow or other this has been overlooked ; and we 
have an empty baptistery in which some millions are to be 
dipped. Another thing is lacking. As there is no water, 
save in the walls, there can be no " figured" purification. 
And yet even the theory admits, that this is one of the vital 
features of Christian baptism, which we are told is here 
"figured." In fact this baptistery assumes the exclusive 
character of a huge sepulchre, and that night-march of men, 
women, and children, sheep and oxen, is a self-baptizing 
funeral procession, working out "the figure" of burial and 
resurrection. 

Well, such is the baptism. 2Tow, may we ask of the 
theory, which is so rich in Classic lore, and so tenacious of 
the heathen rights of fiaxriZw, on what cases of parallel clas- 
sical usage they ground this Red Sea baptism ? My limited 
knowledge supplies no case of heathen baptism "into empty 
space." It seems to me that a good deal of peculiar rhetoric 
will be required to make out the case, and, after all, the 
abandonment of the Classic side of /2a7rr::>, and something, 
perhaps, be said, in an undertone, about "a religious use." 
I am afraid that the weight put on this reed will be found 
quite too heavy, and that, in breaking, it will pierce the 
hand that leans upon it. 

It is something, however, to repay our study of this re- 
markable structure, to learn, at least, that its baptism into 
nothing, figuring a burial and resurrection, makes no spe- 
cial claim to the Classics for support. 

3. Seeing, now, that this structure is repudiated by inspi- 
ration, so far as to unroof it; and is repudiated by heathen- 
ism through her Classics, so far as the "dry" baptism is 



300 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

concerned; let us see what aid and comfort the theory itself 
is ready to extend to its offspring. 

(1.) The theory demands a baptizer. The candidates for 
baptism are a host, before which the numbers of Pentecost 
dwindle into insignificance. Must this be a self-baptism — 
prototype, on a magnificent scale, of the self-baptism of 
Roger Williams? Then, along with purification, we elim- 
inate from the "resemblances" the not unimportant feature 
of a baptizer. 

(2.) The theory requires, that in self-baptism /?a-™ shall 
officiate. " The person dips himself; therefore if is fid-raj, to 
dip, and not pairciZw, to cause to dip." (Carson, p. 30.) But 
here we have some millions "dipping" themselves, and it 
is fiaxTga), and not /3a7rr<y, that does the work. What says 
the theory ? 

(3.) The theory requires a modal act — dip, and nothing 
but dip. But here we have the modal act tramp, tramp, and 
nothing but tramp. What says the theory? All right? 

(4.) The theory demands a momentary covering for its 
dipped object. Here was one lasting from the evening till 
the morning-watch. Will that answer for a dipping? 

(5.) The theory requires faith in the candidate for bap- 
tism. To make these candidates suitable in their resem- 
blance, it fills them with faith in Moses, where the Scrip- 
tures show them rampant with unbelief. 

(6.) The theory repudiates infant baptism. And yet in 
this very remarkable baptism, it exhibits the most magnifi- 
cent spectacle of infant baptism that the rolling ages have 
ever witnessed. 

Our ear has grown familiar with the information (fur- 
nished by the theory, not the Scriptures), that there were 
no infant children in the family of the Jailor, or of Lydia, 
or of Stephanas, or of any other baptized family of the New 
Testament; but were there no infant children among all the 
families of Israel? Were these infant children taken from 
their parents' arms, and carried over outside the water-walls, 
and unshadowed by the cloud-roof? or, was their baptism 
put down with that of the sheep and the oxen, as of nothing 



INTERPRETATION OF THE RED SEA BAPTISM. 301 

worth, lest it should be supposed to be one of the "resem- 
blances to the Christian ordinance?" 

Unless the. theory is prepared to take a baptism without a 
baptizer; unless it is willing to confess error in the distinc- 
tion made between pdnru) and /Jcwri-tCw; unless it is prepared 
to set aside the modal act of dipping; unless it is prepared 
to part with that momentary covering, with which dip only 
can furnish it; unless it is ready to set aside its watchword, 
"faith first, baptism afterward j" and, finally, unless it is pre- 
pared to recognize the baptism of little children; it must 
reconstruct its Red Sea baptistery, and repudiate its bap- 
tism by nobody into nothing. 

There is, no doubt, surprising originality in the concep- 
tion of this baptism; otherwise some mind, in the course of 
the three thousand years which elapsed before this theory 
was born, would have caught some glimpse of it. But the 
most brilliant originality can hardly survive repudiation by 
inspired writers, repudiation by classic writers, and repudia- 
tion, or suicidal acceptance, by — itself. 

Such seems to be the present aspect of this " dry baptism" 
in the sea. 

But Dr. Carson asks, more than ouce, "If this is not the 
baptism, then, what is?" Certainly not an unreasonable 
question. We will approach its solution by first stating what 
was the Patristic notion of this baptism. It will be found 
" another kind " of baptism from that just expounded. 



PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION OF THE RED SEA BAPTISM. 

AMBROSE. 

First Extract. — In the first extract from Ambrose, we are 
told that the deliverance of Israel from the land of Egypt, 
by means of the passage provided for them through the Red 
Sea, was a figure of baptism. The baptism was the deliver- 
ance; the passage of the sea was the means whereby it was 
accomplished. 



302 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

Second Extract. — In the second extract there is a partial 
development of the figure as he understands it. It is this : 
"The Egyptian perishes and the Hebrew escapes." The 
application of these historical facts to Christian baptism, he 
makes thus : " We teach in this sacrament that sin is drowned 
and error is destroyed : but piety and innocence remain." 
Ambrose considered the drowning of the Egyptians to be as 
vital a constituent in the Red Sea baptism as the escape of 
the Hebrews. Both had an equally vital bearing on Chris- 
tian baptism as he understood it. Not so the theorists. 

Third Extract. — It is only necessary, in this extract, to call 
attention to the use of in as translating &>, and our transla- 
tion of both in an instrumental and not local sense. Some 
justifying reasons for this have already been assigned; more 
will be given hereafter. 

Fourth Extract. — Here in makes imperative demand, by 
the exigency of the passage, for instrumental power. "In 
nocte," and "in die," may be translated "in the night" — 
"in the day;" yet not so well as through the night, during the 
night, nightly, by night, &c. But "in columna lucis" — "in 
columna nubis" cannot be translated, "in a pillar of light" — 
"in a pillar of cloud." Neither Moses nor the people were 
in the pillar of fire, or cloud, as a fact. But Moses did, in 
fact, lead the people by the fiery and cloudy pillar under 
divine direction. We must, then, allow Ambrose to state 
this fact though he use the preposition " in " to do it. He 
farther explains the figure in this baptism by interpreting 
"the pillar of light" as Christ the Lord; "the pillar of 
cloud" as the Holy Spirit; and the water as the element 
used in Christian baptism. He does not construct a bap- 
tistery with water-walls and cloud-roof. 

Fifth Extract. — Sins pardoned are like Egyptian lead, 
drowned in the sea. The Egyptian is drowned; the Hebrew 
rises, like the axe out of Jordan. 

Sixth Extract. — The special value of this extract is the 
clear exhibition which it makes of the passage through the 
sea as an agency by which something is to be effected, and 
not as an end in which something terminates. This is the 



BAPTISM INTO MOSES. 303 

key winch unlocks the Patristic idea of baptism. Without 
it neither their conception nor their practice can be worthily 
understood. 

Ambrose tells us, "The children of Israel, that they might 
escape Pharaoh and the Egyptians, passed through the midst 
of the dry sea." Language could not be more explicit to 
teach that this dry passage was an agency employed for an 
end, which end was " escape from Pharaoh and the Egyp- 
tians." The nail thus driven home is clinched by the state- 
ment, that those persons desirous of escaping " the devil and 
his satellites " employ Christian baptism as a means to this 
end. And herein is the resemblance between the Red Sea 
baptism and its Patristically understood antitype, Christian 
baptism. The water of the sea saved the Hebrews by giving 
them a dry passage; it slew Pharaoh and his servants by 
flowing over them. Here is agency of the most active and 
efficient character. So, " the water of baptism saves the 
image of God and destroys the sins which it served." Again, 
agency and nothing but agency. 

Ambrose adds another explanation of the figure. "The 
water-walls designate our faith, which we receive in bap- 
tism." This Patrist differs from the theorists in their idea 
that the Israelites had faith in Moses before their baptism, 
lie makes faith a consequence of baptism. * He is right, and. 
they are wrong, so far as this Israelitish baptism is con- 
cerned. 

The understanding of Ambrose as to the Red Sea baptism 
is too clear to be mistaken. He regards the passage through 
"the dry sea" as the means by which Israel was delivered; 
which deliverance was consummated by the reflow of the 
waters and consequent destruction of the Egyptians. 

Ambrose does not fall into the sad blunder, of mistaking an 
agency used to effect a baptism for the clement within which 
the baptism takes place; nor yet, the equal blunder, of at- 
tempting to trace a resemblance between one agency and 
another agency; or between the agency and the element of 
a baptism. These patent errors belong to the theory. 

Ambrose knew perfectly well, that "whatever is capable 



304 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

of exercising a controlling influence over its object, thor- 
oughly changing its condition," is capable of baptizing that 
object. When, therefore, he is told, that the Israelites are 
brought out of a condition of deadly peril, into a condition 
of absolute safety, by means of a miraculous passage through 
the sea, he does not take a line to measure the depth of the 
bed of the sea, or the height of the water-walls, or the extent 
of the cloud-roof, to find out a sepulchre for the immersion. 
Men who do this have lost their heads. They call midnight 
noon; and in proof of it kindle their rushlight and cry — 
"See, the sun!" 

It is the same error which continually crops out in the 
interpretation of Classic baptisms to the violation of all 
rhetoric and common sense. It is the same error as that of 
the lake-frog dipping of Gale, and of the boxer dipped into 
his bloody nose by Carson. It is the dislocation of the 
agency in baptism, and making it fulfil the office of a re- 
ceiving element. 

Whatever misconception there may be in Ambrose about 
the interpretation, or application, of this great baptism, he 
makes no mistake as to the true character and proper ele- 
ments of a baptism. He is in perfect accord with the 
Classics. 

BASIL THE GREAT. 

The quotation from Basil exhibits the sea and the cloud, 
as occupying the position of agency in this baptism. There 
is no debate here about prepositions, for there are none. 
The nominative case declares their character as agents. 
Faith, also, is said to be effected by them, and that through 
the miraculous character of their agency. 

JOHN OF DAMASCUS. 

This quotation is taken from President Beech er, who, also, 
quotes from Hilary on I Cor. 10 : 2, — " Per mare et per nu- 
bem purificati." In both cases, (cloud and sea,) the prepo- 
sition used by the apostle is changed for another, more 
distinctively expressive of instrumentality; while the verb 



BAPTISM INTO MOSES. 305 

is changed for a word expressing, by original use, the mean- 
ing which the Greek word had secured, only, through appro- 
priation to religious rites. 

DIDYMUS ALEXANDRINUS. 

In common with all others, Didymus makes "the waters" 
the instrumental means of salvation, and, therefore, signifi- 
cant of Christian baptism, which he believed to be the in- 
strument in saving the soul. That salvation by the passage 
of the sea, as an instrument, without regard to mode, is the 
truth which allies it to Christian baptism, is conclusively 
shown by the additional statement, that not ouly this par- 
ticular transaction, but "all, else, pertaining to their journey 
from Egypt is a type of salvation by baptism." 

There is not a Patristic writer that hints at a dipping, or 
covering, or immersion, or burial, or resurrection, in this 
Red Sea baptism. With one voice they term it a baptism 
of salvation, in which the cloud and sea were the agencies; 
typifying the Holy Spirit and water, the agencies in salva- 
tion, by Christian baptism. 

The conceptions of this baptism, as entertained by the 
theorists and the Patrists, differ from each other toto coelo. 



INSPIEED INTERPRETATION OF THE RED SEA BAPTISM. 

"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, 
how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed 
through the sea; 

"And were all baptized into Moses by the cloud and by the 
sea." 

Kai izdvTeq efc t<5v Midug^v l^anziGw/To iv rr t vetplXy xal Iv rrj 6aAa.GG7). 

1 Cor. 10 : 2. 
Baptism into 3Ioses. 

Before entering upon the interpretation of the special 
passage with which we are concerned, it will be well to 
glance at the connection in which it stands. 

The apostle says: 1. All our fathers were under the cloud. 

20 



306 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

2. All passed through the sea. 3. All were baptized into 
Moses. 4. All ate the spiritual meat. 5. All drank the 
spiritual drink. 

Here are five distinct facts stated in which all the Jewish 
fathers participated. They are all facts of successive chro- 
nological development, unless the apostle, after having car- 
ried them through the sea in the most absolute manner, 
(using a double dia, with noun and verb,) brings them back 
again into the sea for the purpose of baptizing them. 

The historical narrative says : 1. They were under the cloud 
which passed over them before they commenced their march. 

2. They passed from under the cloud to pass through the 
sea; the cloud remaining behind. 

3. They are now over the sea, and being over are " bap- 
tized into Moses;" or the narrator has made a chronological 
slip, and has got to go back, and tell us what happened in 
the sea, before they "passed through." 

If the baptism was before the "passing through," why not 
say so? If the baptism aud the passing through were one and 
the same thing, why make distinct statements of them, in 
precisely the same form as of events in the same list, which 
are distinct in character and successive in development? 

4. The eating spiritual meat was subsequent to the pass- 
ing through the sea, and, 

5. The drinking of the spiritual rock was after the eating 
of the spiritual meat. 

It will, I think, be admitted by every one, that unless 
there should be a compelling necessity to place the baptism 
before the passing through the sea, it must stand, chrono- 
logically, as the apostle has placed it, in fact, subsequent to 
and, also, a result of the passage through the sea. 

We will now proceed to a particular consideration of this 
deeply interesting statement of the Apostle. 

Translation. 

1. The translation — "and were all baptized into Moses by 
the cloud and by the sea" — presents all the elements which 
enter into a baptism of that class to which the theory says 



BAPTISM INTO MOSES. 307 

this baptism belongs (physical), and which must appear in 
anv formally-stated figurative baptism, based on this class 
of baptisms. We have : (1.) The object—" all Israel." (2.) 
The agency — " cloud and sea." (3.) The element (by ver- 
bal suggestion) — "into Moses." 

On the other hand, the translation of the theory gives us 
neither the agency, nor the element; but merely an object 
and a locality. To secure an agency they have to resort to 
what, alone, is within their reach — the act of marching. To 
obtain an element, they construct a building — baptistery or 
sepulchre — in the sea, and till it with the baptizing element, 
to wit, — nothing at all. Having made this provision to sup- 
plement the deficiencies of the inspired narrative, the trans- 
lation reads: "And were all baptized unto Moses, in the 
cloud and in the sea, into nothing at all, by marching.'' 

This is no caricature. It is no exposition of mine. It is 
the elaborate exposition of the sternest and ablest friend of 
the theory. If any one should complain — with Booth — 
"this makes our theory ridiculous;" it is no fault of mine. 

The translation which we offer is not condemnable on the 
score of lacking any of the elementary features of a baptism. 

2. The translation of b. — That with, or by, may be a true 
translation of &, is admitted by Dr. Carson: "It maybe sur- 
prising that, after all that has been said on the subject, I 
should still lay any stress on the preposition h, in. I may 
be asked, Do you deny that it may be translated with? I 
do not deny this, yet I am still disposed to lay stress upon 
it." (p. 121.) " The preposition is often to be translated loith, 
but in the sense by, grammarians themselves acknowledge it 
to be rare." (p. 330.) Patristic writers — Greek and Latin — 
use lv, and in, with an instrumental sense, much more fre- 
quently than do Classic writers. The same usage is exhib- 
ited in the Septuagint. In Nehemiah 9 : 12: "Thou leddest 
them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in the night by a 
pillar of fire." And Ps. 78 : 14: "In the daytime, also, he 
led them with a cloud, and all the night with a light of fire." 
And in Ps. 77 : 20: "Thou leddest thy people like a flock, 
by the hand of Moses and Aaron." In all these passages the 



308 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

agency of the cloud and fire, of Moses and Aaron, is indi- 
cated by &. 

3. Unless this translation be correct, and lv points out the 
agency, there is no agency. But there can be no baptism 
without a baptizing agency, therefore we are shut up to this 
translation. I may add, that Pliny uses the phrase " in nube," 
when withinness, as to the cloud, is impossible : "neque in nube 
neque inflatu cadunt rores." Dew never falls within a cloud. 
The influence of cloud and wind prevents the formation of 
dew. " Dews do not fall during sl cloudy or windy night." 

4. The translation accords with the historical facts. The 
cloud and the sea were agencies, truly magnificent agencies, 
employed in this transaction. The divided sea, furnishing 
its dry pathway, and the cloud, casting preternatural dark- 
ness over the camp of Pharaoh, while illuminating the night- 
march of Israel, were the miraculous agencies brought into 
operation. The use of miracle, to affect and to influence 
men, is in harmony with the steadily maintained purpose 
of God. To this end miracles were used in Egypt, in the 
wilderness, throughout the Jewish economy, during the life 
of the Redeemer, and in the establishment of Christianity. 
This agency, then, was no strange thing. The influence of 
these miracles on Israel could not, in the nature of things, 
have its development until their full consummation. And 
this consummation neither did, nor could, take place until 
Israel was placed, in safety, on the farther side of the sea, 
and their enemies had been swallowed up in the miracu- 
lously returning waters. Then, and not till then, does the 
narrative say that this influence had its development, effect- 
ing an entire change in the condition of the Israelitish mind 
toward Moses. That translation which usage allows, history 
demands. " Cloud and sea" were not elements to be dipped 
into. They were agencies in which was " the hiding of God's 
power." 

5. Historical facts do not allow the adverse translation — 
"in the cloud, in the sea." There is no historical evidence 
to show that the millions of Israel were now, or were at any 
other time, "m the cloud." There is historical evidence to 



BAPTISM INTO MOSES. 309 

the contrary. There is no historical evidence to show that 
Paul uses h t# 6a)A<jffr h out of its usual sense including water, 
but excludes water, and limits his meaning to the bed of the 
sea. There is historical evidence to show that such cannot 
be his meaning. 

Dr. Carson says: "lie will make the word (panr(Za>) find 
him water in the desert." Here he has the word, and yet 
he cannot find, with it, a drop of water "in the sea." 

These are some of the considerations which vindicate the 
translation, so far as this preposition (&) is concerned. 

3. The translation ofefc. — (1.) The translation "into," is re- 
quired in order to indicate the element (verbally suggested) 
of the baptism. There are classes of baptism in which the 
mersing element is wholly lost. It has no more place in 
imagination than it has in fact. But in all such cases an 
element may be verbally introduced. In some cases this is 
very important in order to give precision to a statement 
which, otherwise, would be vague and uncertain. In other 
cases it is imperative, as without it we could never be cer- 
tain of the nature of the baptism designed. If I am told 
that a man is " baptized by wine," I may conclude with much 
confidence, that the meaning is, he was wade drunk; but of 
this I cannot be confident; for, while this is the natural and 
ordinary influence of wine, it also induces a condition of 
stupor, shame, poverty, &c. If the statement is, " baptized 
by wine into drunkenness" doubt is at an end. The verbal 
suggestion of the element, has settled the matter. If I do 
not know the nature of wine, then to be told that a man is 
"baptized by wine" conveys to me no definite information 
whatever. .Now, the influence of a miracle is not limited, 
by its nature, to one result; neither are miracles always 
wrought for the accomplishment of one uniform result. 
" Baptism by miracle," therefore, is not specific in its in- 
formation. What baptism would be effected by the mir- 
acles at the Red Sea, could never be known, definitely, ex- 
cept by specific statement. The Egyptians were baptized 
into terror, by the divine intervention troubling their chariots, 
and witnessing the inrolling of the waters, before they were 



310 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

baptized into the flood. We never could have known that 
these miracles would issue in the baptism of Israel " into 
Moses," unless we had been told so; for he had wrought 
many miracles before without any such result. But we do 
know that such was the result, now, because inspiration so 
informs us, in terms than which language has none more 
explicit. " All were baptized into Moses." 

(2.) Usage demands this translation. — There is not an instance 
in Classic literature in which ek stands thus related to paxriCw, 
but that the friends of the theory translate by, into. "We have 
made no objection to this. But we insist, that what was right 
then, cannot be wrong now. "Into " must remain into. 

When Josephus Wrote, ^s^aizzLffixivov ek avaie6r { ffiav xai uicvov — 

it was a "baptism into stupor and sleep." (Conant.) The 
translation must stand, though "stupor and sleep" give 
place to "Moses." When the Christian Patrist, Clemens 
Alex., wrote, ek nopveiav fianri^ooGt — the translation found a 
baptism "into fornication." (Conant.) When the inspired 
Apostle writes, ek z6v Mio^v kpaxziaavro, — I know of nothing 
in inspiration to change the force of a preposition, and there- 
fore still read, "they were baptized into Moses." 

(3.) The translation, "unto Moses," is not satisfactory. It 
may be so translated very frequently in other relations. It 
may be so interpreted, here, as to give the true sense. But 
it does not present the form of the original, nor lead to that 
method of interpretation which the form suggests. It is also 
objectionable, because in phrases of the same grammatical 
form, the subject-matter being changed, the same translation 
would not answer. If Eupolis must be baptized into the sea, 
and not unto the sea, that he may be brought under its in- 
fluence — drowned ; — then Israel must be baptized into Moses, 
and not unto Moses, that they may be brought thoroughly 
under his influence — subject to his headship. 

(4.) To these considerations may be added the very pointed 
testimony of some of the Patrists. 

Origan, ii, 330, says: "He calls this baptism into Moses" — 
baptismum hoc nominat in Moyse — "accomplished by the 
cloud and by the sea, that thou, also, who art baptized into 



INTERPRETATION OF THE RED SEA BAPTISM. 311 

Christ, by the water and by the Holy Spirit, mayest know 
that the Egyptians are following after thee." . . . 

J3asil M. , iii, 428 : " That Israel was baptized into Moses, by 
the cloud and by the sea, exhibiting types and delineating 
for thee the truth about to be revealed in these last times; 
but thou dost shun baptism, not typified by the sea, but per- 
fected by the truth; not by the cloud, but by the Spirit; not 
into 31oscs, a fellow-servant, but into Christ, the Creator — 

obx els MwoffTfV rov 6fi6doukov, aX'/C elq Jiptarov rbv Tzovqoavca" 

Basil M., iv, 121-5, writing of the Holy Spirit, states an ob- 
jection against the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father 
and the Son, thus: Objector, "But although we are baptized 
into him — (3anTtX6p.e6a eiq auzb — it is not proper that, on that 
account, he be ranked with God; for some were baptized 
into Moses : ek tov MwOffrjv nveq IpariTiofyaav." He concludes, 
after argument, "So, although any one be baptized into 
Moses — riq els Mu)ug7jv kpaTzriaQiq — the grace which is from the 
Spirit at baptism, is not small." " It is customary for the 
Scriptures to speak of Moses as the Law — thus : ' they have 
Moses and the prophets.' Therefore speaking of the legal 
baptism — rd vojuxdv fidTtrtafia — he says: 'They were baptized 
into Moses' — ^aicria&rjaav efc rd> Mwua? l v. ,> "Moses was a type, 
not of the Spirit, but of Christ." 

~No one I think can doubt but that these learned Grecians 
believed in a baptism into Moses. While there is no evidence 
that they had ever heard of a baptism into empty space, there 
is conclusive testimony that they were familiar with the bap- 
tism of Israel into their great Leader. 

Interpretation. 

But what interpretation is to be given to the phrase "bap- 
tized into Moses?" 

It is obvious that the basis of the interpretation must be 
found in the literal use of similar phraseology. In turning 
to the literal use of fioj;TL*m we find several classes of baptisms 
presenting material diversities. . 

1. There are baptisms of influence without inf imposition 
whether of fact, or imagination, or verbal suggestion. The 



312 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

phraseology before us cannot be grounded in baptisms of 
this class, because there is nothing to meet its verbal form. 

2. Other baptisms are of intusposition merely ; they have 
no attendant influence. This cannot be the baptism we 
wish, for we must have influence. 

3. Another class of baptisms have both intusposition and 
influence; but the influence is an accident, unsought, un- 
cared for. We will not take such a baptism if we can find 
a better. 

4. A better is found in yet another class of baptisms in 
which intusposition is sought, solely for the sake of the in- 
fluence thence resulting. For example, " They baptize into 
the water a pole covered with pitch," for the sake of catching 
floating particles of gold. "Baptizing them into the lake," 
for the purpose of drowning them. " Baptize it into milk" 
for the sake of its emollient influence. "Baptizing it into 
blood" for the purpose of securing the means wherewith to 
write. (See Classic Baptism, p. 266.) In all these cases intus- 
position is for the sake, and solely for the sake of influence. 
This influence in every case is diverse in its nature, but com- 
plete in its measure. The method of securing that influence 
is an accident due to the nature of the case. In applying 
these baptisms to that which is in hand, we reject, of course, 
those things in which they differ; as respects 1. The agencies 
in the baptism. 2. The forms of action introducing into 
the baptism. 3. The objects to be baptized. 4. The ele- 
ments within which the baptism takes place. 5. The nature 
of the influence sought. 

In none of these particulars do these baptisms agree. 
Hence we see, how patent is the error which makes baptism 
to consist in the performance of a form of action; and, also, 
the error, in interpreting figurative baptisms, by converting 
the source of influence into a pool of simple water. Why 
not convert it into water impregnated with golden particles, 
or into a vessel filled with milk, or into a pool of blood ? 
The fact that intusposition in simple water, drowns — in gold 
water, gilds — in milk, makes emollient — in blood, makes red — 
is proof that figurative baptisms cannot be interpreted by 



INTERPRETATION OF THE RED SEA BAPTISM. 313 

making any of these things the menstruum within which its 
object is to be placed. All the peculiarities of any medium 
must be eliminated. The conception must be made abstract. 
We thus secure the general idea of influence from intuspo- 
sition. When, with this idea, we confront the phrase ete 
Mwotfv, we at once recognize the purpose to express the 
thought of such influence (as to its measure), as results from 
the intusposition of an object within an enveloping medium. 
It does not mean that Moses is such a medium in fact. It 
does not mean that we shall imagine Moses to be such a 
medium ; that we shall imagine two million men to be put 
within him, or within a pool of water, milk, or blood, repre- 
senting him, for the writer is not a lunatic. But it means, 
by the verb and the preposition, to suggest an idea inherent 
in these words in certain relations, and apply that idea to 
the peculiarities of the case with which it is here connected. 
In doing this we use the thought of intusposition merely to 
reach that of influence, and having done so, throw it aside 
like a scaffolding, as having served its purpose. 

These suggestive words having fulfilled their function, we 
enter upon ours as interpreters of the Apostle, and say : He 
declares, that Israel was made subject to the controlling in- 
fluence of Moses, by means of their miraculous deliverance ; 
even as an object is made subject to the controlling influence 
of any medium by which it is enveloped through an indefi- 
nitely prolonged period of time. The resemblance is in the 
measure of influence, not in the mode of accomplishment. 

This interpretation is precisely what the exigency of the 
case demands. Moses had j ust been appointed, as he claimed, 
by divine authority to be head of an unorganized nation. 
Their position was one of the greatest possible embarrass- 
ment and peril. They had no established confidence in him. 
It was essential that they should have the firmest conviction 
of his divine mission. Under him they were to be organized 
into a nation. Through him they were to receive a code of 
stringent laws. By him they were to be introduced into a 
highly developed religious system. With him they were to 
encounter a long series of privations, perils, marches, and 



314 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

battles. As no other people in this world, before or since, 
it was necessary that Israel should have confidence in their 
Moses. The infinitely wise God selected this juncture to 
accomplish this end, so essential to all his purposes in the 
future. None could be more thoroughly adapted to the 
purpose. The liberty and life of these millions are quiver- 
ing in the balances. In their judgment the scales had already 
gone down on the side of bondage and death. In their 
anguish they cry to Jehovah. In their despair they upbraid 
their Leader. Then, in that hour when all hope had fled, 
that leader's rod is stretched over the sea and deliverance 
bursts upon them. The cloud-witness to their Leader plants 
itself between them and their enemies. The dreaded sea 
opens a passage for them. Safe on the farther side, (the 
waters closed, their enemies enclosed in them,) baptized into 
Moses , through this divinely attesting miraculous deliverance by 
sea and cloud, voice and timbrel proclaim Jehovah to be God, 
and Moses to be his servant! 

We are now ready to answer Dr. Carson's question: "If 
it was not a dry baptism into empty space, between water- 
walls and under cloud-roof, what was the baptism?" It was 
a baptism in which Jehovah was the baptizer; the cloud and 
the sea were the conjoint agency; Israel's millions were the 
subjects; and Moses, (as claiming to be the Legate of Je- 
hovah,) is the verbal element. In a word, this baptism de- 
clares that Israel was, hereby, made subject to the controlling 
influence of Moses in his divine mission. 

In making this declaration the apostle merely repeats, in 
other terms, the identical sentiment uttered by Moses himself, 
"And the people believed the Lord and his servant Moses." 

Who would take the "dry baptism" of the theory, rather 
than this grand baptism of inspiration ? Let others choose 
as they may, I will choose, with the apostle, the baptism of 
the fleshly Israel into the type-prophet Moses, shadowing 
forth the baptism of the spiritual Israel into the antitype 
Prophet — Christ the Lord! 

Such is the clear, rational and God-glorifying baptism at 
the Red Sea as interpreted by inspiration through Paul. 



BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 315 

THE RIVER DIVIDED BY MIRACLE. 

BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 

II Kings 2 : 8. 

"And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together and 
smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so 
that they two went over on dry ground." 

Interpretation. 

. . . '2Tv zw 'lopodsTj ftaTtTiadfievos, btel rijv dt udaroq rapado-furipav 
d'.djaG'.'; ,3d-ri(T/xa^ <l>z -pu-apzHpzOa, tbvdfiaaev 6 llavXoq. . . . 

" But this, also, is to be observed, that Elias, when about to 
be received up into heaven, having taken his mantle, and wrap- 
ped it together, he smote the water, which divided hither and 
thither; and they both passed through, to wit, he and Elisha; 
for he is made more fitted to be taken up, having baptized 
himself by the Jordan, seeing that Paul called, as we have be- 
fore shown, a more wouderful passage through water, baptism. 
Through this same Jordan Elisha passes to receive the gift, by 
Elias, which he desired, saying: 'Let a double measure of thy 
spirit rest upon me.' And perhaps, for this reason, he received 
doubly the spirit of Elias, because he twice passed through the 
Jordan, once with Elias and a second time when, having received 
the mantle of Elias, he ' smote the water, and said, Where is the 
God of Elias ? And he smote the waters, and they divided hither 
and thither.' " — Origen, iv, 280. 

. . . "Il/.iac dvaXaft^dveraij d)X 6o yujp\z uuaruq • -pwruv yap d:a- 
fiai'/t'. ruv *Iopddv7)v : zlra irzr-.r^Aazzl zuv uopasdw. . . . 

"If any one desires to know wh}* grace is given by means of 
water and not by means of any other of the elements, search- 
ing the divine Scriptures he will find out. For water is some 
great thing and the best of the four visible elements of the 
world. Heaven is the dwelling-place of angels, but the heavens 
are of the waters. The earth is the home of men, but the 
earth is of the waters, and before everything, of the things 
which were made during the creation of the six days, the Spirit 
of God was upborne above the water. Water was the beginning 
of the world, and the Jordan was the beginning of the Gospels. 



316 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

Deliverance to Israel from Pharaoh was by means of (foa) the 
sea, and deliverance of the world from sin is by means of (did), 
the washing of water, by (£v) the word of God. Wherever there 
was a covenant with any persons, there was water. After the 
flood a covenant was made with Noah. A covenant was made 
with Israel out of Mount Sinai, but with water, and scarlet wool 
and hyssop. Elias was taken up, but not without water, for first 
he passes through (dta{3ahet) the Jordan, then rides by horses 
to heaven. The high priest is first washed, then sacrifices. 
Aaron was first washed, then was high priest. For how shall 
he enter in to pray for others, who is not yet purified by means 
of (did) water. And the laver placed within the tabernacle was 
a symbol of baptism." — Cyril, 433. 

Translation. 

The translation of lv ™ 'lopddvy is made "by the Jordan," 
because the case seems to demand it. 1. The baptism was 
effected by a peculiar influence, attributed to water, and not 
by water, as a simple fluid. 2. The baptism was effected by 
Jordan, as a whole, and not by any portion of it. 

But if the translation "in the Jordan," be insisted upon, 
tben, 1. The phrase lv rw 'lopdavy does not, of any necessity, 
involve a particle of water. 2. More than this : pa-ri'o) may 
be conjoined with the phrase h t<l ''lopddvq, and still there be 
no dipping into water, no covering with water, and no ap- 
plication of water to the person in any form, or in any meas- 
ure. 3. What is most important of all, it teaches us, that 
after we have been told that a person has been baptized, and 
after we have been told the place of his baptism, and that 
place a river — "m the Jordan " — we cannot possibly, hereby, 
know the quo modo of the baptism. If any theorist should 
be told that "two men were baptized in the Jordan," and 
asked, if he could tell how it was done ? the answer would 
be prompt, and in the language of Carson, "Certainly I 
know how it was done. They were either dipped into the 
water, or whoever says 'they were baptized in the Jordan,' 
tells a falsehood." Unfortunately, however, for this kuow- 
ing theorist and his teachers, Elias and Elisha were both 
"baptized in the Jordan," (as they insist,) and yet neither 



BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 317 

was "clipped" into the water, or even sprinkled with it. 
Classic Baptism (pp. 352, 353, et passim) insists upon the 
truth, that fta-r^w is not a self-interpreting word, as to the 
modus operandi in effecting a baptism. And here we have 
that position confirmed. If Cyril does tell us that the pro- 
phets were "baptized in the Jordan," the statement leaves 
us in Egyptian night as to the mode of the baptism. If we 
answer in what mode they were baptized, and are guided 
by the Greek Archbishop of Jerusalem, this will be our re- 
ply : " They were baptized in the Jordan by walking along 
its dry channel, within reach of that purifying influence 
imparted to the element water, (and not to earth, or air, 
or lire,) at the beginning of the creation, when 'the Holy 
Spirit moved upon the face of the waters.' " And this was 
their mode of baptism. A new style for the theorists. 

It is evident that by the translation "in the Jordan," you 
meel a local fact which is to be supplemented by the agency 
effecting the baptism. The translation, " by the Jordan," 
responds to the influential agency exerted by the Jordan in 
accomplishing the baptism. The first translation, if adopted, 
must be supplemented by the last — in the Jordan and by the 
Jordan influence. 

Patristic Interpretation, 

In speaking of the translation, we have been compelled to 
trespass somewhat on the interpretation. The baptism being 
that of Origen and Cyril, the interpretation must follow their 
language and sentiments. If there be any persons better 
qualified than these Grecians, to speak with authority as to 
the use of a Greek word, or to teach us the true nature of a 
baptism, I do not know who they are. 

ORIGEN. 

Origen says that Elias was baptized, and that he was bap- 
tized by passing through the Jordan. The question is, as 
to the nature of this baptism. Was it a dipping, or an en- 
velopment, or by a controlling influence from which envel- 
opment is eliminated? We must be guided in our judgment 



318 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

by his language and known sentiments. From his usage of 
the word there can be no appeal. He was a Greek of the 
Greeks. That there was no dipping, in fact, is unquestioned. 
That there was no actual envelopment, is also conceded. 
That there was a change in the condition of Elias, fitting 
him for heaven, is a matter of express statement. That this 
change of condition was effected, instrumentally, by passing 
along the dry channel of the river, is also matter of distinct 
statement. 

We say that the baptism did not consist in any modal 
movement of the body, nor in any modal position occupied 
by the body of Elias. 

Proof of this is found : 1. In the fact that the modal act, 
moving the body of the prophet, was walking, and not dip- 
ping. 

2. In the fact that there was no malposition, interposi- 
tion there was, or rather mtermotion. But I have never 
understood that the one or the other was a baptism. 

3. No physical movement or position will answer for the 
baptism of Origen. These things won't Jit the soul for heaven. 
But this was the baptism which Elias received. The bap- 
tism, then, was one of influence, changing condition. Proof 
of this is found : 

1. In the reference to the parallel passage of the Israelites 
through the divided sea. Origen deduces no physical mer- 
sion from this passage; but declares, that through the'influ- 
ence of the miracle providing this passage, under the instru- 
mentality of Moses, they were "baptized into Moses." So, 
Elias was baptized through the influence of this sacred stream, 
purifying him and making him meet for heaven. The holy 
character of the Jordan, and its power over body and soul, 
is developed in the paragraph following the quotation under 
consideration. He there argues against the " offence" which 
might be taken in consequence of its being stated that the 
Jordan was " struck." That river being a "type " of Christ, 
" who is our Jordan," is too sacred to be struck by the pro- 
phet. The difficulty is met by a reference to the smiting of 
the rock in the wilderness — "And that rock was Christ." 



BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 319 

lie farther states that, " As there is none good but one, even 
God the Father, so there is no river good, but the Jordan, 
which is able to cleanse from leprosy him that washes his 
soul, with faith, in Jesus." This stream, of such marvellous 
virtue, was able to baptize for heaven, him who walked be- 
tween its waters. 

2. Farther evidence that this baptism was one resulting 
from influence, changing the condition, is found in the sug- 
gestion, that Elisha received "a double measure" of the 
spirit of Elias, by passing twice through the Jordan. 

CYRIL. 

Cyril's conception is the same as that of Origen. It was 
effected by water, as an instrumental agency, and not by 
water or " empty space," as capable of receiving an object 
dipped into it. The labored effort of Cyril to show the pe- 
culiar virtue of water above every other element, settles the 
character of this baptism, and at the same time settles the 
claims of the theory. If the idea which this Patrist had of a 
baptism, was a dipping or a covering, why does he assume 
the task of showing that water has a better quality for a dip- 
ping or a covering, than has Are, earth, or air? Why does 
he attempt to prove that this quality was given to it by " the 
Spirit of God moving upon the waters " in the beginning of 
creation ? Was this necessary to qualify water to cover, or to 
be penetrated by an object dipped ? Cyril believed that there 
was a power divinely communicated to water, to purify the 
soul. He believed that this power belonged to it, as water, 
irrespective of the mode of its use. This is clearly shown 
by his reasoning as to its presence in every covenant trans- 
action; its use in the washing of the high priest; in the 
symbol character of the laver; and by the statement that in 
these transactions the water was used as an instrumental 
means (^«), having " magna vis" — a great virtue — and not 
as a fluid, for dipping into. 

HARMONY WITH CLASSIC USAGE. 

In this usage of /Smrn'Cai by these Greek writers, there is no 



320 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

departure, not even by a hair's-breadth, from the usage of 
the Classics. 

In Classic Baptism (p. 316, &c.) it has been shown that 
baptisms are effected by controlling influences, without any 
conception of intusposition. This evidence has been ac- 
cepted as satisfactory by competent judges. It has been 
neither refuted nor denied by any. The baptisms of Elias 
and of Elisha, are of this character. As from wine, drunk, 
there proceeds an intoxicatktg-baptizing influence; and as 
from an opiate, eaten, there proceeds a soporific-baptizing 
influence; so, from walking between the divided waters of 
the type Christ Jordan, there proceeds a purifying-baptizing 
influence, as from the person of the antitype Jordan. 

The Theory. — What, now, is the claim which the theory 
presents to secure this crossing of the Jordan for her list of 
dippings? What can be more conclusive than her argument? 
"Is it not clear, that the walking down one side of the river, 
and walking up the other side of the river, is elegantly put, 
by the rhetorical figure of ' a misuse of words,' for a dip- 
ping?" Perhaps so. At least, I think that the argument is 
very evidently concluded. 

I only add that, in this additional "dry dipping," the 
water-walls of the baptistery have lost their " cloud-roof," 
and the walking-dipping has to be without "a covering." 



PASSAGE OF THE EIVEE BY MIKACLE. 

BAPTISM INTO JOSHUA. 
Joshua 3: 16, 17. 

" The waters which came down from above stood and rose up 
upon a heap very far from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan, 
and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the 
salt sea, failed and were cut off; and the people passed over right 
against Jericho. 

" And the priests that bare the ark of the covenant of the 
Lord stood firm on dry ground in the midst of Jordan, and all 



BAPTISM INTO JOSHUA. 321 

the Israelites passed over on dry ground, until all the people 
were passed clean over Jordan." 

Interpretation. 

" Et sicut de prioribus dictum est, quia, ' omnes in Moyse bap- 
tizati sunt in nube et in mari,' ita et de Jesu dicatur, quia omnes 
in Jesu baptizati sunt in Spiritu sancto et aqua." 

"And as it was said concerning the fathers, that 'all were 
baptized into Moses by the cloud and by the sea/ so, also, it 
may be said of Jesus (Joshua), that all were baptized into Joshua 
by the Holy Spirit and water." — Origen, ii, 743. 

"De iis quidem qui Mare Eubrum transierunt .... quod per 
baptismum celebratur." 

"Of those who passed over the Eed Sea, the Apostle says, 
that 'all were baptized into Moses by the cloud and by the sea.' 
But of those who passed over the Jordan we may also declare 
in like manner, that 'all were baptized into Jesus (Joshua) by 
the Jordan.' So that those things which are related as done in 
the Jordan, possess the form of a Sacrament, which is celebrated 
by baptism." — Origen, ii, 847. 

°0zi elicev av xa\ 7zs.pt zabr-qq 6 IJauXo^' Ob OiXco 6/idq ayvoelv, dds\<poi y 
ore ul itaripeq f/fi&v izdvrzq dtd rod 'lopddvou dt^AOov, xai ndvres elq rdi> 
'Irjffouv Ifiamriaavto iv rat Tzvzbpan, xai Ttorapa). 

"Paul might say of this: 'I do not wish you, brethren, to be 
ignorant that all our fathers passed over through the Jordan, 
and all were baptized into Jesus (Joshua) by the Spirit and the 
river.'" — Origen, iv, 270. 

. . . . To dk ecq ' Irjffouv fidxreffpa, iv zip dX-qGaJq yXoxzl xa\ nori/xio 
TCorafKp, noXXd k'yji ra/5 txelvo k^aipera. . . . 'Ev yap rip ^aizriaaa^ai els 
'Irjffouv yvojff6/j.e$a, on Oeor Caiv iv ijpuv iart. 

"But Jesus (Joshua) who succeeded Moses, was a type of 
Jesus Christ who succeeded the economy of the law by the 
preaching of the Gospel. Wherefore, though they all were 
baptized into Moses by the cloud and the sea, their baptism has 
something bitter and unpleasant, because still fearing their ene- 
mies. . . . But the baptism into Jesus (Joshua) by a truly sweet 
and potable river, has many choice things above that. . . . And 
Joshua said to the people, 'Sanctify yourselves, for to-morrow 

21 



322 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

the Lord will do wonders among you.' . . . And the Lord said 
to Jesus (Joshua), 'This day will I begin to magnify thee in the 
sight of all Israel, that they may know that as 1 was vrith Moses, 
so 1 will be with thee.' 'Come hither and hear the word of the 
Lord our God; by this shall ye know that the living God is 
among you.' For by the baptism into Jesus, we know that the 
living God is in us. And the Lord acknowledges the reproach 
of Egypt to be taken away in the day of the baptism into Jesus 
(Joshua), when Jesus (Joshua) thoroughly purified (mpisxdeacpev) 
the children of Israel." — Origen, iv, 277. 

LIKENESS AND UNLIKENESS TO THE RED SEA BAPTISM. 

There are very obvious points of similarity, and some of 
dissimilarity, between this Jordan baptism and the Red Sea 
baptism. By considering the two, both in their agreement 
and disagreement, we shall find valuable aid in determining 
the question — What is the real character of the baptism? 

Let us look at some of the points of difference which most 
concern us. 

Dr. Carson insists, (without historical statement to sustain 
him, and contrary to facts so far as related,) that Israel was 
in the cloud, on the ground of a possible meaning of a prepo- 
sition used by the apostle in connection with this transaction. 
And this, to get that for which his theory makes inexorable 
demand — " immersion in the cloud." He, also, insists (con- 
trary to express historical statement,) in roofing the water- 
walls with the cloud, because of another preposition used by 
the apostle, without giving the shadow T of proof that Paul 
had any reference to this particular occasion. And this to 
secure & quasi "immersion in water." 

Eveiw one must feel that such absolute resting on (not to 
say wresting of) doubtful words, and such antagonism to an 
historical record, would never be ventured upon except in the 
direst extremity. What shall be done, then, in the case of 
an otherwise ditto baptism, to meet the demands of a theory, 
which (like a famished ogre that can feed on nothing else) is 
ever crying for dipping, dipping, when there is no "in nube" 
or " sub nube" out of which to construct a dipping? 

There is one water-wall which " heaped up" looks down 



BAPTISM INTO JOSHUA. 323 

upon this baptism of Israel, and by its miracle character is 
instrumental in its accomplishment; but the other has run 
away and " immersed itself in the abysses of the sea — maris 
gurgitibus fuisset immersa." There is then a lack of wall 
whereon to rest the cloud-roof, even if any cloud were pres- 
ent. The Red Sea baptistery, then, must be dispensed with. 
And with it, I suppose, must go "death, burial, and resur- 
rection." And well they may, for this is a joyous baptism 
into Joshua Jesus. No enemies are pressing on from be- 
hind. The privations of the wilderness have all ceased. 
The land of promise is before them. How different this 
baptism at high noon, from that baptism by deep midnight! 
How different is baptismal subjection to the stern represent- 
ative of Law, from the baptismal influence proceeding from 
the lovely type of a Gospel Saviour! But the question re- 
turns: Seeing that the baptistery is gone, what shall be 
done for a dipping? I cannot tell; unless, indeed, after the 
bard experience of the theory, it should conclude to share 
in that, only, immersion of which Origen speaks, and float 
down with the onflowing waters until it should find welcome 
rest, — " Salsi maris gurgitibus immersa." No little specific 
gravity is required for a baptism in those heavy waters; but 
there is quite enough of leaden error in this theory to give 
it an honest immersion in the deepest depths of a sympathiz- 
ing Dead Sea. 

N. B. This Greekly immersion of the theory, by Origen, 
will give to it " death and burial," but will allow of no " resur- 
rection." No dipping can be found in this " immersa." 

THE BAPTISM TAUGHT BY ORIGEN. 

"We will now seek for some better baptism than that of the 
theory. 

Inspiration does not speak of this transaction as a baptism. 
But any one who should reflect upon the perfect accord be- 
tween the leading features of the passage of the Red Sea 
under the leadership of Moses, and the passage of the Jordan 
under the leadership of Joshua, would feel that if the former 
were a baptism into Moses, the latter must be a baptism into 



324 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

Joshua. As the exigencies of the case demanded divine in- 
tervention to baptize Israel into — make thoroughly subject 
unto — Moses, so, like exigencies demand that they shall be 
baptized into — be brought thoroughly under the influence 
of his divinely appointed successor. And this is done by 
affixing the divine seal to his commission, through a most 
stupendous miracle wrought under his instrumentality. The 
object, "to magnify thee in the sight of all Israel, that they 
may know that as I was with Moses, so will I be with thee," 
and the means, " to-morrow the Lord will do wonders among 
you," were distinctly stated. History shows that the means 
were adequate to the result — " And Israel served the Lord 
all the days of Joshua." After reflecting on the language 
of Paul interpreting the passage of the Red Sea as issuing 
in a baptism into Moses, it occurred to me, that by parity 
of reasoning Israel might be said to have been baptized into 
Joshua at the crossing of the Jordan. The conviction of 
the propriety of using such language in the case, was not 
diminished when I found, subsequently, that Origen had 
been led to the same conclusion a thousand years before me. 
He declares, a dozen times over, that the baptism was " into 
Joshua." The theory, and everybody else, admits that no 
language is more competent to point out the element of 
baptism than PanTt'Zto ek. And, unless the most satisfactory 
reasons to the contrary can be given, it must be regarded as 
pointing it out in fact. 

If any one objects to Joshua being the element into which 
two million men are "dipped," my reply is: I object, also, to 
any such nonsense. Such brobdignagian figures belong to the 
theory. I claim "no soul for poetry " like this. It belongs 
to the lake frog class. But I do claim, that Joshua is the ver- 
bally suggested element, as pointing out the source whence 
influence, under God, is to proceed, bringing these millions 
into subjection to all the rights of his heaven-given and di- 
vinely-attested commission. And as illustrative of this ver- 
bally suggested inness, I may refer to the language of Origen 
in the last quotation, — "For by (&) the baptism into Jesus 
we know that the living God is in us." Now, is it any easier 



BAPTISM INTO JOSHUA. 325 

for Him who fills all space to get within these bodies of ours 
than it is for all Israel to get within Joshua? It will be 
time enough to object to Origen's " baptism into Joshua," 
when objection is made to his — " living God entering into 
us." And whoever objects to the one, or the other, will 
probably be set down as belonging to the crassissima Minerva 
class. 

Take a more modern parallel passage which happens to be 
under my eye. 

Professor Tholuck, speaking of John Calvin says, "In the 
Pauline Epistles he merges himself in the spirit of the Apostle, 
and becoming one with him," &c. Now, although Calvin 
was not a very stout man, yet as Paul is reputed to be a very 
short one, it would be a tax upon the imagination to con- 
ceive how the Genevese reformer could merse himself inside 
of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Most probably, &ny who 
undertake the feat will give it up unaccomplished. Those 
for whom the German Professor wrote will be content to 
understand (by this verbal suggestion of sources of influence 
and a mode by which that influence is developed) that the 
more modern Paul came thoroughly under the influence of 
the inspired Paul — was baptized into Paul — came so con- 
trollingly under his influence as to "become one with him." 

This baptism will answer quite well for the " baptism of 
Israel into Joshua." If they are so subjected to his influence 
as to " become one with him," Origen will not ask for the 
millions to get either inside of him, or of a pool of water. 

But there is other phraseology than that employed at the 
Red Sea baptism, in connection with the instrumental means, 
which gives additional evidence to the correctness of the 
view now presented. 

THE INSTRUMENTAL AGENCY. 

1. It may be remarked, in general, that the expression 
jSa—^oj h is not the usual form for indicating the element 
within which baptism takes place. I do not remember an 
instance among Classic writers where, with the uncom- 
pounded verb, it is so employed in connection with a fluid. 



326 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

It is used, I believe, twice indicating the body as that in 
which the soul is mersed. 

2. This phrase, fiaTtT'Xw h, is employed with varied signifi- 
cance. (1.) In the rare use just indicated, — "the soul bap- 
tized in (» the body." (2.) Expressing locality, place where 
the action occurred. Origen speaks in this connection, of 
a baptism "in O) Bethabara," simple locality. (3.) It ex- 
presses a period of time within which a baptism took place. 
Hippolytus speaks of a baptism "in (» that very night." 

3. It marks the condition of things during the continuance 
of which a baptism occurred. Thus we are told of a baptism 
"in (&0 a calm." 

4. It indicates the agency or instrumentality by which a 
baptism is effected. 

Origen says, the baptism under consideration was " by 
(&) the Holy Spirit and water." 

This last statement is, of course, denied by friends of the 
theory. It must then be sustained by evidence. As it is 
admitted that lv may have the force attributed to it, proof 
in that direction is unnecessary. We are required to show 
that a general possibility becomes concrete in a particular 
necessity. 

In attempting this task we remark, that the only antago- 
nistic senses to that claimed are, 1. Locality, 2. Inness. If 
these are disproved, then the other, agency, is established. 

1. The matter of locality is settled at once. " The Holy 
Spirit" is not a locality. "Water," the abstract element, 
is no more so. We have done then with ev as representing 
the place where. 

2. As to "inness" I remark that this confronts us with 
these trifling embarrassments. (1.) Making two baptisms 
out of one "in the Holy Spirit" and "in water" (2.) One 
in a person and the other in a thing. (3.) The one a spiritual 
baptism, the other a physical baptism. This is absurd. It 
is farther absurd to attribute such a statement to Origen. 
(1.) Because there was nothing to call for a baptism of Israel 
" in the Holy Ghost." (2.) Because Origen did not believe 
in any such baptism in Old Testament times. (3.) Because 



BAPTISM INTO JOSHUA. 327 

it makes Origen talk, I will not say like a theorist, but cer- 
tainly like one bereft of his reason, to say, that all Israel 
were baptized in water, when the miracle was wrought to 
keep them out of the water. 

If such are the results of attributing to & the duty of point- 
ing out the element within which the baptism takes place, 
we must excuse this particle from any such duty. 

The field, then, is left unoccupied for &, instrumental. 

In this sense Origen uses it in close connection with this 
transaction. "Elisha desired to receive a gift through Eiias 
— zdpiff[ia did 'IlXiou'," and it is added, "he received the gift by 
the spirit of Elias upon him — x d P t(7 P- a ^ i&evp#n *UMou l<p iauzdv." 
Here &d and lv seem to be used, substantially, with the same 
force. And this suggests the perfectly parallel passage re- 
specting x a pt ff f iaTa } given by the Holy Spirit — '&<■ &a too Uveu- 

[xaroc; didurat Idyoq ao<pia'Z . . . akXoi ds %ap{Giia.Ta ia/xdrww. bs r<p abrip 

UveOfxart. Here, again, we have dcd and & interchanged, and 
expressive of the same idea of agency in bestowing "gifts." 
If, now, agency suits the passage, we have a possible sense 
converted into an imperative sense, by the exigency of the 
case. And, 1. There is no embarrassment in saying, "Israel 
was baptized into Joshua by the Holy Spirit and water," be- 
cause these two agencies can cooperate, under this miraculous 
working, in accomplishing this great result. 2. Divine power 
was not only necessary to work the miracle, but to influence 
the minds of the people to secure the result. " The Holy 
Spirit," then, and the miraculously heaped up "water" were 
necessary — conjoined — agencies in effecting the baptism. 

In another passage Origen says, "by the Spirit and the 
river" The whole "river" w T as employed in this baptism, 
without one drop being used, even so much as to sprinkle. 
It w r as a "dry baptism," by a river of "heaped up waters." 
And as they passed over Jordan, gazing upon that crystal 
monument, ever rising higher and higher, witness from 
God, magnifying their new Leader, its influence brought 
them out of that condition of forty years' subjection to their 
great Moses, and brought them into a like condition of life- 
long subjection to his illustrious successor. 



328 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

The "baptism into Joshua, by the Spirit and the river," 
"by the Holy Spirit and the water," was complete. 

Whatever specific difference there may be between this 
baptism and Classic baptisms, the principle governing the 
use of the word is essentially the same. 



SACKIFICE CONSUMED BY MIKACLE. 

BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 
I Kings 18 : 32-38. 

"And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the 
Lord; and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would 
contain two measures of seed. 

"And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, 
and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, 
and pour it on the burnt sacrifice and on the wood. 

"And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the 
second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did 
it the third time. 

"And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the 
trench, also, with water. . . . 

" Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt sacri- 
fice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up 
the water that was in the trench/' 

TloOev dk 6/j.lv 7ve7Ct(7reuerat 'HXtav fia~TLGS.iv rbv kXeuffo/ievov, oudk to. l-\ 
ra rob OucnaGT-qpiou £uXa, xaTa Tobq too 'A/aafi ypovooq, dedfteva XouTpou, 
\va b/.xaoOfj InupavivToq Iv ~up\ too Kupcoo, $a~Ti6avToq\ y E~usXeosTat yap 
rolq lepeuffi tooto xoirjaat. . . . 

'0 Toivuv p.rj auToc; fiaizTiaaq Tore, . . . Ttajq fia-Tt^eiv epeXXe ; XpiGToq 
<oov dux kv odaTt fiaizTi^ei, aXX 6i p.a&TjTcu doTob' iauTw de Tr t pel to dytto 
UvEV/iaTi fia-Ti^ew xa\ -opt. 

" But why do you believe that the Elias to come will baptize, 
when he did not, in the time of Ahab, baptize the victim upon 
the wood of the altar, which needed cleansing, at the appearing 
of the Lord by fire ? For he commands the priests to do this. 
. . .. How, then, is he, coming according to the words of Malaehi, 



BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 329 

to baptize, since be did not baptize then, but committed the 
work to others? Christ, therefore, did not baptize with water, 
but his disciples. He reserves to himself the baptizing by the 
Holy Spirit and fire." — Orige?i, iv, 241. 

"Edstzsv 'HAtas too j3a-rc(T/j.aroq ttjv Iffybv l~\ too ftoj/xoo twv oXoxoiutw- 
fidziov 6u did zoo Tzopoq, dXXd di odaTor ttjv 6oaiav oloxaoTUxraq. . . . 

"Elias has shown the power of baptism by burning the sacrifice 
upon the altar of burnt-offerings, not by means of fire, but by 
means of water. For although the nature of fire is opposed to 
that of water, yet when the water is mystically poured, thrice, 
upon the altar, the fire begins, and kindles a flame, as though it 
were oil." — Basil Magnus, iii, 428. 

v Eyo) Tptlq IxLxXbffsiq xard twv ff^tddxwv, alq xaOtepcuffcu r^y Quatav, 
udart Tzop kysiptov, to TzapadoZjoTOLTov ) xdi Tobq TZpocp-qTaq xaTafialu) t?^ 
aiaybyqq. iJ.o<JTr t piou duvd/isi ypw/ievoq. 

"I have three overpourings upon the wood, with which I will 
hallow the sacrifice, kindling fire by water, which is most wonder- 
ful; and I will cast down the false prophets, using the power of 
the mystery." — Gregory Naz., ii, 421. 

"Siquidem baptismus velut ignis quidam peccata consumit; 
quia Christus in igne et Spiritu baptizat. Denique hunc typum 
legis in Eegnorum libris, ubi Elias super altare ligna imposuit, 
et dixit ut mitterent super de hydriis aquam et dixit : . . . . et 
cum manaret aqua, precatus est Elias, et ignis descendit de coelo. 
Tu es homo super altare, qui ablueris aqua, cujus exuritur culpa, 
ut vita renovetur. . . . 

" Typum baptismatis demonstravit Elias, et coelum aperuit. 
. . . Nemo enim nisi per aquam et Spiritum ascendit in regnum 
coelorum." 

"Since baptism, like a fire, consumes sins, for Christ baptizes 
by fire and Spirit. Finally, thou readest this type in the books 
of the Kings, where Elias placed wood upon the altar, and di- 
rected that they should cast over it water from water-pots, . . . 
and when the water flowed, Elias prayed, and fire descended 
from heaven. Thou, O man! art upon the altar, who shalt be 
cleansed b}^ water, whose sin is burned up that thy life may be 
renewed. 

"Elias showed a type of baptism, and opened heaven, which 
had been shut three years and six months. . . . For no one can 



330 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

ascend into the kingdom of heaven except by (per) water and 
the Spirit."— Ambrose, i, 727, 728. 

EXPEMMENTUM CRUCIS. 

This baptism of the altar furnishes a crucial test for the 
theory. I have never known a friend of the theory volun- 
tarily to speak of this baptism. Whenever their attention 
is called to it by others, they approach it as reluctantly as 
the victim comes to the altar where death glitters in the 
edge of the sacrificial axe. 

There is a painful foreboding of some fatal blow. 

True, there are scores of cases which do as fatally brain 
the theory; but some word, or thought, or thing, by its pres- 
ence or absence, or some figure, rational or irrational, gives 
material out of which to raise a cloud, under whose shadow 
there may be a w T ay of escape. Here, from the nature of 
the transaction, from the locality where it takes place, and 
from the fulness and explicitness of language, there is less 
opportunity to mystify the statement, or to elude the dam- 
aging blow. At the sea-coast baptism, where " dip, and noth- 
ing but dip," seemed hopelessly to perish, he w T as charmingly 
revived by a potion of poetry applied through " covered and 
bare I" At the Red Sea baptism, where there was no dip- 
ping, and no chance for poetry through a tidal wave, two 
prepositions (& and otto) are converted into architects, and 
lo! in a trice, a baptistery arises, within which " death, bur- 
ial, and resurrection" are enacted secundum artem. In the 
baptism of Elijah the roof is taken from the baptistery, but 
then there is the going down and the coming up, which an- 
swers, in poetry, for "dip," just as well as "covered and 
bare." And r in the baptism under Joshua, although the 
baptistery is still farther dilapidated by the loss of one of its 
w T alls, still there is the bed of the river left, and that will 
still " darkly shadow " a grave and burial. All this being 
admitted to be unanswerable (and, in all good conscience, I 
can say that I do most sincerely think that it is very embar- 
rassing to answer such flights of poetry, and such feats of 
architecture), we come to the case in hand. 



BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 331 

Here we have no tidal wave to poetize this altar baptism. 
"Wo have no prepositions wherewith to build water-bouses 
without any water in them. We have no bed of the sea to 
convert into a sepulchre. We have no channel of a river 
into which we may "go clown," and out of which we may 
"come up." We are not even at the edge of a pool where 
a baptism must be by dipping, or the inspired writer "tells 
a falsehood." We are not introduced to a baptism by 
"washing" at a tent door to be silenced by the revelation, 
that "washing may be by dipping, and that baptism wash- 
ing must be by dipping." We have not a baptism by sprin- 
kling, to be pointed to "a washing" at some other time and 
place as the baptism, for " sprinkling cannot baptize." We 
have not the case of hot iron baptized by cold water poured 
upon it, to hear the smiling solution — " the pouring was long 
enough to cover it, and the covering was the baptism." We 
have no one baptized by an opiate pill, to be schooled in that 
rhetoric which dips sleepers, by figure, into pools of water. 
We are on the top of old Carmel. Seas, rivers, pools, water- 
walls, clouds, dry channels, goings down and comings up, 
have all disappeared from the scene. We have indeed a 
washing; but we are expressly told that it was without a 
dipping. And we have a pouring; but we are as explicitly 
told that it was not "continued long enough to cover." 

What is to be done with this Carmel baptism ? 

Let the friends of the theory answer : 

"Any child can understand it means a dipping." — Carson. 

On this very remarkable baptism Dr. Carson has the fol- 
lowing paragraph : 

"Dr. Miller (of Princeton) tells us that Origen was con- 
temporary with Cyprian, and that he, in commenting on 
I Kings 18: 33, tells us that 'Elijah baptized the wood on 
the altar.' This proceeds on a principle I have often ex- 
plained and illustrated. Every child knows that our word 
immerse may be used in the same way." 

And this is all that Dr. Carson has to say on a case which, 
on the face of it, utterly destroys his theory as to the mean- 



332 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

ing of PanrtZio, and nullifies the " demonstration " which sums 
up his life labor. 

It seems impossible that Dr. C. could ever have read the 
passage which he so cavalierly expounds. There is not the 
shadow of evidence for the baptism turning on the quantity 
of water used. The amount of water was to satisfy all, that 
there was no concealed fire. The use of the word baptize 
contemplates a wholly different aspect of the altar and sac- 
rifice. They needed "cleansing" (Xourpod) to be acceptable 
to God. 

But let us look at that " principle" so often explained that 
it has become too wearisome even to state. 

It is probable that he refers to the explanation given of 
the sea-coast baptism, in which he says, — "When this word 
(paitriZa*) is applied to an object lying under water, but not 
actually clipped, the mode essentially denoted by it is as truly 
expressed as in any other instance of its occurrence — figur- 
ing the object which is successively bare and buried under 
water, as being dipped when it is covered, and as emerging 
when it is bare. Can any child, then, be at a loss to learn 
from this that baptism means to lay under water?" 

The Academiciens of Paris having been asked by Dr. 
Franklin, " why, when a fish was put into a vessel filled with 
water it would not overflow?" very learned answers were 
given, based on the nature of the fish, to show that it must 
be so ; but they were declared to be unsatisfactory. Being 
asked for the solution of the phenomenon, he gave them 
this piece of advice: "Gentlemen, before giving reasons for 
a fact be sure of the existence of the fact. / think the vessel 
will run over." Before Dr. C. accounts so learnedly for /3«HrreC«i 
being used in a covered and bare figure clipping, it might be 
well to inquire whether there is any such conception in the 
word. I think that there is none. But even if there were 
any such idea ever associated with this word, the altar is not 
" lying under water," and therefore the application fails. But 
we have another exposition of this "open sesame" principle 
to which all obstacles to the theory must give way. 

It is called upon in the case of Nebuchadnezzar and the 



BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 333 

dew. He says, " It will be of importance to settle the ques- 
tion though it should occupy some pages." After " some 
pages" we have this result: "Without doubt the verb ex- 
presses, here, mode as well as anywhere else. . . . The Holy 
Spirit by Daniel used the word signifying to immerse, when 
speaking of the wetting of Nebuchadnezzar by the dew, to 
enliven the style. . . . "Wetting by the gentlest distillation 
in nature, is here, in the liveliest and most imaginative 
language, figured as an immersion." . . . "Can any child 
then be at a loss," &c. 

Whether, in this application of the principle, this "lively 
and imaginative language" extends to figuring the king as 
"lying under water," when the dew was on him, and as 
"bare" when the beams of the sun had dried up the moist- 
ure, we are not told. And having "no soul for poetry," I 
am not able to throw auy light upon the matter. However, 
we have "the principle often explained and illustrated," 
which is to illuminate the Carmel baptism. We are by " a 
lively imagination " to conceive of the altar as "lying under 
water," while the water is poured, and "bare" when the 
pouring stops. Then convert the action of pouring into the 
action of dipping, and you have a lively and imaginative ex- 
pression for an immersion. 

Now, "can any child fail to understand" from this flowing 
tide, falling dew, and pouring water, that "pairciZa* means to 
dip, and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature?" 

So long as the appeal is made to children, (and this is quite 
a favorite refrain with Dr. C.,) I have nothing to say. The 
audience and the ratiocination seem to be very well adapted 
to each other. 

One remark, however, I may be permitted to make: — 
When an object is said to be baptized, and the manner of 
the baptism is not stated, Dr. C. will not listen to the sug- 
gestion of any other mode of baptizing than by dipping. No 
"principle," no "figure," no "beautiful play of the imagina- 
tion" is tolerated. It is all plain, prose, dipping. If instead 
of an altar " a couch " is to be baptized, no "flow of water," 
no "gentle distillation," no "pouring" can have a hearing. 



334 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

The couch must be " lifted up by pulleys," or must be " taken 
to pieces" by a bed-screw, and carried forth for a dipping. 
If a man is to be baptized in a desert, no pouring, no dewy 
sprinkling, must be mentioned. "The word shall find the 
water and do the dipping." 

Such statements fully justify us in saying: "If this Carmel 
altar had been declared to be baptized, without the historical 
statement of the mode, Dr. C. would have insisted, either 
that there was a pool on the top of the mountain, into which 
the altar was dipped, or that it was ' taken to pieces,' like 
the couch, and carried down the mountain to the shore of 
the sea, and dipped into the Mediterranean." 

If objection should be raised that such a baptism would 
be a heavy task for the prophet, the answer would be at 
hand, "Where were the tribes of Israel?" Such "demon- 
strations " of dipping, the Baptist world receives with exult- 
ant joy, and laments that " it is not light that is most wanted, 
but religious honesty," on the part of those that cannot see it. 

Such extravagant interpretations ignore the laws of lan- 
guage, modifying the meanings of words; conflict with Car- 
son's own judgment, in assigning to the word "enlighten" 
(Figurative Language, p. 278) a secondary meaning; and 
condemns his own condemnation of Gale on the ground of 
bad rhetoric. 

" It is a drench, surround, steep-baptism" — Fuller. 

We pass on to Dr. Fuller's treatment of this baptism. 

"Our opponents tell us that Origen says, of the wood and 
sacrifice of Elijah's altar, that they were baptized. But as 
we are inquiring into the meaning of fi<nzTi*(i> at the time the 
Saviour used it, and as Origen lived two hundred years after 
this period, I have not thought it worth while to examine 
this case. (!) Suffice it to say, that Origen's meaning is 
plain. . . Origen was one of the most impassionate of men; 
dealing in bold metaphors and allegories; and who but sees 
the force of his words? . . . What was the idea in Origen's 
mind? It was an immersion. ... In the case of Elijah's 
altar, the twelve barrels of water were first poured, and the 



BAPTISM OF TIIE ALTAR. 335 

trenches all around filled, and it is the effect of this, it is the 
thus being drenched, surrounded, and steeped, which Origen 
figuratively calls a baptism. " 

Dr. Fuller is evidently preparing for some sad catastrophe, 
as with funereal step he approaches Elijah's altar. His "two 
hundred years after Christ;" "most impassionate of men;" 
"allegories and metaphors;" "who but sees?" "I have not 
thought it worth while to examine the case;" sound very 
much like a requiem at the death and burial of the theory. 
The denouement explains it all. lie was invited to a bap- 
tism by the great Grecian Instructor of the Alexandrian 
school, and instead of taking him down a river's bank, he 
conducts him up a mountain's side; and there he witnesses 
the rite administered, not by " going down into the water 
and coming up," not by " dipping or covering," but by the 
simple outpouring of water. Now, it will not answer for the 
Baptist to come to open war with the Greek, so he makes 
the best terms possible, and very affably says: " Your mis- 
use of terms is quite excusable; nay, highly rhetorical. Who 
cannot see the impassioned poetry which converts the act of 
dipping into 'a drenching, surrounding, and steeping effect?' " 

To argue or expostulate with those who can originate or 
accept such figures, is all in vain. Gale will still dip his 
lake in the frog's blood, and the theorists will still dip Car- 
mel's altar by "drenching, surrounding, and steeping." 
We must be content, with the rest of the "enlightened but 
dishonest" world, to believe that Origen meant just what 
he said, and that the altar was baptized by pouring water 
upon it. 

I do not know whether we should most rejoice or regret, 
that the theorists are tending steadily toward those regions 
(abounding in light, but void of honesty) which we inhabit. 
There is this comfort, however, we will try and keep our 
"light," while they will bring "honesty" enough for us all. 
Thus wo can live with a fair fame and in goodly fellowship. 
In the meantime we will mark the progress of Dr. Fuller, 
as the representative man of the coining theorists. 

1. He once wrote on this wise, making baptism centre in 



336 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

the performance of a definite act: "In commanding his dis- 
ciples to be baptized, Jesus knew what act he enjoined, and 
he could have been at no loss to express his meaning." 

2. He eviscerates baptism, subsequently, of all definite 
act, thus: "It matters not how the baptism is effected." 

3. He again stretches out his wand, and lo ! all act has 
disappeared from the essence of the word, and it is turned 
into a condition: "Suppose a man should lie in the baptistery 
while it is filling by water poured into it. The pouring would 
not be an immersion (baptism), yet an immersion (baptism) 
would take place if he remained long enough." 

4. And now condition, in turn, disappears, and effect takes 
its place : " It is the effect of this; it is the thus being drenched, 
surrounded, and steeped, which Origen figuratively calls a 
baptism." 

But the marvel is, that having thus passed from definite 
act to general act, and from general act to condition, and 
from condition to effect, he should talk of an opponent after 
this manner: "One of the latest and most prominent of our 
opponents, drops altogether the act, and assures us that 
^aizri^o) means" — an effect. . . . " It is appalling to think 
how many receive the sentiments of these authors, and quiet 
themselves by their assertions. One consolation, however, is 
left: it is plain, from this last feeble attempt to defend" — an 
effect — "that the case is becoming desperate; that God is 
causing error to culminate, and show itself on an eminence, 
and thus be exposed before all." 

Strongly said, for one who has brought baptism to the 
issue of "effect," on this mountain top. The "eminence" 
to which God has brought the " error " of this theory, for its 
culmination, is that same old Carmel where the " error" of 
Baal's worshippers was exposed. There, at the feet of the 
grand old prophet, (solitary but glorious and triumphant 
defender of Jehovah and his truth,) do these good brethren, 
" exposed before all," lay down their error, which affirms 
that the Lord Jesus Christ commanded " nothing but an act." 
As surely as Baal was no God; so surely is " the theory" no 
truth. 



BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 337 

One more illustration of the treatment of this baptism, 
and I will leave it. R. Ingham (Handbook ou Christian 
Baptism, London, octavo, pp. 620) says, (p. 530): "Origen, 
who died A.D. 254, is quoted as saying, that ' Elias did not 
baptize the wood upon the altar, but commanded the priests 
to do that.' When our friends begin thus to baptize the 
dear babes brought to them, to have a good work wrought 
on them, we believe that < the right of election ' will lead to 
the choice of a single immersion as more convenient than 
such a trine pouring as caused the water to run 'round 
about the altar/ and 'filled the trench also with water.' 
And we rather opine that such a practice would help in per- 
ceiving that the baptism enjoined in God's word is nothing 
else than immersion." 

Well, I suppose that when good argument has ceased, and 
bad rhetoric will no longer answer, we must take the best 
jokes that can be got up. And if this joke about "the dear 
babes," is the very best that "B. Ingham " can get off, we 
must accept it, excusing its heaviness on the ground of a 
naturally dolorous spirit, in view of the failure of the theory 
under the experimentum crucis of Mount Carmel. 

The theorists having been allowed to interpret this bap- 
tism according to their own conceptions, we find that their 
methods for escape under difficulties are both various and 
inconsistent. This we would expect from fundamental error 
in the conception of the nature of a baptism. Error is mul- 
tiform. Truth is uniform. Not only are their interpreta- 
tions discordant and disregardful of the principles of lan- 
guage, but some of them, at least, bear internal evidence 
that the passage in the original had never been examined. 

ORIGEN. 

We will, now, let the Patrists speak and expound this 
baptism by their own language and principles. 

1. The word ftaxriZw as used by Origen in this case has 
nothing to do with a "dipping" as claimed by Carson. 

The conversion of the acts of "flowing," "falling," "pour- 

22 



338 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

ing," by figure, into the act of dipping, Dr. C.'s own friends 
unite to repudiate. 

It has nothing to do with "passion," "metaphor," "alle- 
gory," "drenching," "surrounding," "steeping," (Fuller.) 

Origen is making, a cool, critical examination as to the 
justness of Jewish opinion in relation to the administrators 
of baptism, and grounds his argument, largely, on the lead- 
ing feature of this baptism, viz., that it was not effected by 
Elias personally. We do not look for passion, or metaphor, 
or allegory, in a critical argument. The word has as little to 
do with "drenching," " surrounding," and "steeping." The 
logical and grammatical relation of the word is in an entirely 
different direction. Its relation is with r& Sad/iem Xoorpoo, " that 
which needed cleansing." A newly built altar was required 
to be "cleansed and purged" (Ezekiel 43 : 18-20). The ap- 
pointed mode of cleansing was not adopted by the prophet; 
nor does the Scripture say that he used the water for cleans- 
ing; but our business is with Origen and his conceptions, 
who uses the w T ord. He believed, for he expressly declares, 
that a " cleansing was necessary." Now it is, precisely, to 
meet this exigency that Origen uses the word. With the 
form employed to effect this cleansing panriZia has nothing to 
do either by intrinsic force or grammatical relation. This 
conclusion, reached by the study of this particular passage, 
is in harmony with all other writings of this Patrist. The 
force of §a-Kxi^m is expounded by rd deofieva Xoorpov, — " he did 
not, himself, baptize (cleanse) that which needed cleansing." 

2. Origen's use of the word has no more to do with 
" twelve barrels of water " and their " soaking effect," than 
it has to do with the act of pouring. 

According to the phraseology there were three baptisms. 
The priests were commanded, (according to Origen,) " to bap- 
tize the altar by pouring four barrels, or pitchers, of water 
upon it." This command they obeyed, and the altar was 
baptized. They were commanded to baptize it a second time 
and in the same way. This, also, they did, and the altar was 
baptized a second time. The command was repeated yet 
again, and again it was obeyed, and the altar was baptized 



BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 339 

a third time. This is the only just interpretation of the 
language employed. And it is sustained by the well-known 
Patristic trine baptism. If, then, this be a "soaking" bap- 
tism, it must be made out of four pitchers of water poured 
over a slain bullock, wood and stones. But such a baptism, 
laid at the door of this learned Greek, is enough to wake 
him from the dead to defend his fair fame. 

8. Since " the twelve barrels" have been transformed into 
"four pitchers," and one-fourth of one would have answered 
just as well for Origen's baptism, (although not so well to 
prove that the prophet had "put no fire under,") "the dear 
children brought to have a good work wrought upon them" 
need not feel so very much alarmed. 

BASIL MAGNUS. 

The " effect" which Dr. Fuller attributes to this baptism, — 
"drenching and steeping," is not much like the effect at- 
tributed to it by Basil. The one thinks it is called a baptism 
because the altar becomes watersoaked; the other says it is 
in fact a baptism, because it brings its own credentials in 
" the power " to kindle a devouring fire. There is "power" 
in baptism, (that is, in the water used in baptism mystically 
poured thrice,) not to make very wet (!), but to burn up sac- 
rifice and altar stones, or to burn up the sins of the soul. 
Those who do not like Patristic theology are at full liberty 
to reject it ; but those who do not like their philology must 
first show, that the Greeks did not understand Greek, before 
they can be allowed to thrust a "drenching" into the place 
of a purification, or a "soaking" into the place of a burning. 

GREGORY NAZIANZEN. 

" Three overpourings." This language is used without 
the slightest hesitation by Gregory, and in accordance with 
all Patristic usage and sentiment, to denote baptism. 

" With which I will hallow the sacrifice." Again, we have 
evidence that the Patrists attributed to water "a power" 
not to make wet, but "to make holy" by "three pourings." 
Water of baptism is, with them, an agency. 



340 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

" The power of the mystery" If anything has been estab- 
lished by these multiplied examples of baptism which have 
engaged our attention, it has been proved, that "the power 
of the mystery" has nothing to do with the manner in 
which the element (in which this "power" resides) is used. 
Three overpourings irrespective of quantity, or, once walk- 
ing through the dried Jordan, will equally well baptize. 

They equally well baptize, not because of the action in 
pouring or walking; not because of the effect, wet or dry; 
but because of a development of "the power" changing the 
condition, either of the victim on the altar, making it hal- 
lowed for God's acceptance in sacrifice, or of Elijah, making 
him hallowed for God's fellowship in heaven. 

AMBROSE. 

Ambrose says, the water of baptism burns up sin, and, that 
the baptism on Carmel, by which the sin offering was burned 
up, was a type baptism. 

He also likens the person about to be baptized by himself, 
to the victim laid upon Carmel's altar, and declares that he 
shall be "cleansed by water — qui ablueris aqua" (the Latin 
daguerreotype of Origen's statement — ra dsofieva Xourpou) " and 
his sins burned up." 

It will, I think, be admitted by the theorists themselves, 
that there is no little difference between their conceptions 
of this baptism and that entertained by the Patrists ; while 
doubtless they will think — so much the w T orse for the Greeks. 
For has it not been discovered in these latter days, that 
" fiaTzxi^it) means dip and nothing but dip through all Greek 
literature?" Something which Origen, and Basil, and Greg- 
ory, and Ambrose never knew. 

THE ERROR. 

Baptist writers find themselves involved in inextricable 
difficulties in the interpretation of this and kindred baptisms, 
by reason, 1. Of a fundamental misconception of the mean- 
ing of /Sa7rr£'Cw, supposing it to express action rather than to 
make demand for condition. 2. From supposing that it has 



BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 341 

no secondary meaning. They involve themselves in pre- 
cisely the same difficulties which they did so long as they 
denied to /Set-™ a secondary meaning. Then, when a berry 
was pressed in the hand and the hand was said to be bapted 
(dipped), of course, as there is but one meaning to the word, 
it was necessary to make out a dipping. This must be done 
in the Carson style by making one act (press) figure in the 
place of another act (dip); or, in the Fuller method, making 
the wetness caused by the juice of the berry to figure (by its 
likeness in effect) a dipping. So, the hand wet by blackberry- 
juice is figuratively dipped into it, under the patronage of 
" poetry " and " passion." By the assignment of a secondary 
meaning to fidxra — (to dye), this swollen balloon filled with 
poetry, passion, and figure, has been pricked, and has col- 
lapsed into plain prose. All this, mutatis mutandis, applies 
to their interpretation of paxriZw. They can never interpret 
the usage of this word by the laws of language and common 
sense, without a fundamental modification of their concep- 
tion as to its meaning. 

This baptism must be interpreted from a Patristic-Judaic 
point of view. The altar and the sacrifice are Judaic; the 
interpretation of the water used as effecting a baptism, is 
Patristic. There is no baptism resultant from the ordinary 
physical qualities of water. There is no act by which the 
altar and victim are "put into and under water." There is 
no act by which the water is brought upon the altar and 
sacrifice "long enough" to cover it over. These are ad- 
mitted facts. 

To make out a baptism, where there is no baptism accord- 
ing to their "axioms," the theorists resort, as we have seen, 
to all sorts of devices. And the result is, that no one of their 
writers seems to satisfy any other, and, indeed, not to satisfy 
himself. And no wonder, for there is no satisfaction to be 
found in the direction in which they are looking. One might 
as well look toward the Southern Cross for the North Star. 

This baptism is not one of primary physical baptism. It 
is not one of intusposition simply, nor of intusposition with 
or for influence ; but it is a baptism without intusposition — 



342 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

a change of condition effected through the influence of the 
baptizing agency. The water is the baptizing agency. Ori- 
gen, Basil, Gregory, and Ambrose, believed that there was 
a "power" in water " mystically poured thrice/' to change 
thoroughly the condition of the object to which it was ap- 
plied. They believed that the condition of this slain bullock 
was thoroughly changed ("purified," "hallowed," "made 
meet for the Lord at his coming by fire") through the " mys- 
tery " of the water poured upon it. Therefore they said it 
was baptized. 

In this use of the word there is the sternest adherence to 
the principle regulating the word in Classic usage. 

It is the natural, not mystical, "power" of water which 
changes the condition, baptizes hot iron when poured over 
it. It is the natural, not mystical, " power" of water which 
changes the condition, baptizes wine when poured into it. It 
is the natural, not mystical, "power" of wine which changes 
the condition, baptizes a man when it is poured into him. 
But it is the mystical, and not natural, "power" of water 
which changes the condition, baptizes the sacrifice upon the 
altar. The baptism is Judaic in its character. It introduces 
its object into a condition of ceremonial purification. 

Could any interpretation meet more absolutely the de- 
mands of a case? Could any interpretation be in more 
absolute harmony with the laws of language ? Could any 
interpretation be more fully vindicated by Classic usage? 
Could any interpretation be more crucially fatal to " the 
theory?" 

We, now, close the testimony of Grecian and Latin writers 
in applying fann'to to the facts and ceremonials of Old Tes- 
tament history. That testimony is given so abundantly, so 
uniformly, so explicitly, and so authoritatively, that few will, 
henceforth, hold in much regard the theory which proclaims 
" a dipping and nothing but a dipping, or at least a cover- 
ing, through all Greek literature." 



APOCRYPHA. 



(343) 



BAPTISM AND MIRACLE, 

ALTAR BAPTIZED BY SPRINKLING. 



II Maccabees 1:19-36. 

"For when our fathers were led into Persia, the priests that 
were then devout, took the fire of the altar privily, and hid it in 
an hollow place of a pit without water, where they kept it sure, 
so that the place was unknown to all men. 

" Now after many years, when it pleased God, Neemias being 
sent from the King of Persia, did send of the posterity of those 
priests that had hid it, to the fire: but where they told us they 
found no fire, but thick water; 

" Then commanded he them to draw it up (ano /Ja^a'vra^-), and 
to bring it; and when the sacrifices were laid on, Neemias com- 
manded the priests to sprinkle (Intfifiavat rw udari) with the water, 
the wood and the things laid thereupon. 

"When this was done, and the time came that the sun shone, 
which afore was hid in the cloud, there was a great fire kindled, 
so that every man marvelled. 

. . . "Now when the sacrifice was consumed, Neemias com- 
manded the water that was left to be poured on the great 
stones. 

" When this was done, there was kindled a flame; but it was 
consumed by the light that shined from the altar. 

11 So when this matter was known, it was told the King of 
Persia, that in the place where the priests that were led away 
had hid the fire, there appeared water, and that Neemias had 

purified (fiptffav) the sacrifices therewith And Neemias 

called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to say a cleans- 
ing (xafafjiff/xoq)" 

Interpretation. 
"Superioris eventus ac potissimum oblati a Neemias sacrificii 
narratione, Sanctum Spiritum, Christianorumque baptisma sig- 
nificari : 

(345) 



346 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

" Arbitror quod nee ignem istum possimus ignorare, cum le- 
gerimns quia baptizat Dominus Jesus in Spiritu Sancto et igni. 

" Quid ergo sibi vult esse quod ignis aqua factus est, et aqua 
ignem exeitavit; nisi quia spiritalis gratia per ignem exurit, per 
aquam mundat peccata nostra ? 

. . . "Elise quoque tempore descendit ignis, . . . hostiam suam 
tertio ipse perfudit aqua, et manabat aqua in circuitu altaris, et 
exclamant, et cecidit ignis a Domino de ccelo, et consumpsit 
boloeaustum. 

" Hostia ilia tu es." 

" The narrative of the preceding event (see Levit. 9 : 24), and 
especially of the sacrifice offered by Nehemiah, betokens the 
Holy Spirit and the baptism of Christians. 

"I think that we cannot be ignorant as to this fire, since 
we learn that the Lord Jesus baptizes by the Holy Spirit and 
fire. 

" What then means the fire was made water, and the water 
kindling the fire, except that spiritual grace, by fire, burns, and 
by water, cleanses our sins ? 

. . . " Fire also in the time of Elias descended, ... he bathed 
the victim with water thrice, and the water flowed around the 
altar, and they cry out, and fire fell from the Lord out of heaven, 
and consumed the burnt-offering. 

" Thou art that victim." — Ambrose, iii, 174. 

SPRINKLING BAPTISM. 

It was stated in Classic Baptism (p. 346), " that a state of 
complete purification induced by the sprinkling of Ibis water, 
is as legitimate and true a baptism, interpreted by Classic 
Greek, as would be a state of complete covering of the body 
sunk to the bottom of the Kile." 

" Sprinkling demands, not as of grace but as of absolute 
right, the acknowledgment of its power to baptize." 

This statement we re-affirm, after haviug largely consid- 
ered Judaic and Patristic usage. Unnumbered examples 
sustain the position. The case before us furnishes yet an- 
other. It teaches us, immediately, through Ambrose, and 
with the unanimous consent of every Classic, Jewish, and 
Patristic writer, that a sprinkling which is capable of thor- 



ALTAR BAPTIZED BY SPRINKLING. 347 

onghly changing the condition of its object, is capable of 
baptizing that object. 

Every sprinkling will not baptize ; because a baptism does 
not result from the mere act, or, from the sprinkling of any 
and every fluid or substance. It is essential that the thing 
sprinkling should have a controlling power over the condi- 
tion of the object sprinkled, which power finds development 
by such action. In all such cases I maintain, that a most 
Greekly baptism (without any help from figure and without 
favor from any quarter) is effected. Thus Nehemiah's altar 
and sacrifice were baptized by water sprinkled upon them, 
being purified through a special "virtue " belonging to the 
fire-water. 

"BAPTISM (IMMERSION) BY SPRINKLING, ABSURD." 

Dr. Conant (p. 99) quotes Alex, de Stourclza, Russian 
State Councillor of the Greek Church, as saying: "It is an 
abuse of words and of ideas, to practise baptism by aspersion, 
this very term being, in itself, a derisive contradiction. The 
verb /9a7rr«C<w, immergo, has in fact but one sole acceptation. 
It signifies, literally and always, to plunge. Baptism and im- 
mersion are, therefore, identical, and to say, baptism by asper- 
sion, is as if one should say, immersion by aspersion, or any 
other absurdity of the same nature." 

As Dr. Conant declines to be bound by his own quoted 
authority, as to the defining of panriZw "literally and always 
to plunge" and feels at liberty, or feels the necessity for nul- 
lifying that "literally and always," by adding six other de- 
fining words, showing that, in his judgment, his friend was 
quite at fault in his definition; and as Booth thinks that 
"plunge, literally and always," "would make our senti- 
ments ridiculous," I do not know why we should be re- 
quired to strait-jacket ourselves in the Stourdza opinion, as 
to the absurdity of a baptism, or immersion, by aspersion. 

The Greek Councillor forgot his Greek, when he said, 
that there was any essential absurdity in the phrase, (to take 
it in the strongest and baldest form in which the case cau 
be put,) " immersion by sprinkling " 



348 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

The Septuagint says : " Nebuchadnezzar was dipped by 
the falling dew-drops." — "Ah! yes," replies the theorist, "it 
does seem to be absurd to talk of dipping by dropping; but it 
is not so in fact. There is a lofty vein of poetry, and highly 
wrought figure in such expressions, which not only imbue 
it with all that is rational, but invest it with a sparkling, 
rhetorical beauty." 

Well, and what do you say of the Father of Medicine 
speaking of "garments dipped by drops falling on them?" — 
"In good sooth, the absurdity is, on the face of the statement, 
the same; but we expound the absurdity out of it in another 
way. We now lay aside poetry and figure (which we once 
used in this case), and take the statement as literal. It might 
be thought that, in doing so, we would certainly run against 
'the absurdity.' But we do not. We turn a sharp corner, 
by the help of a secondary meaning, and find this ' absurd' 
phraseology to be most rational." ( 

And how do you treat the same "absurdity" as uttered 
by the Romans, e. g., "pastures dipped by dew-drops?" — "As 
we have not yet agreed to allow the Latins a secondary 
meaning for 'dip' when used with pure water, we again fall 
back on poetry, and are lost in admiration of the beautiful 
figure by which the grassy plains, and hills, and valleys are, 
by the giants of rhetoric, picked up and dipped. Thus the 
absurd vanishes and the rational appears." 

And is the elimination effected in the same way when 
Ovid speaks of " the body dipped hy sprinkled water? " — " Not 
exactly. We do not think it prudent to resort to these 
highest flights of poetry and rhetoric except under pinching 
necessity. We seek, then, first to change the word tingere 
to ta?igere, but in case of failure we fall back on our reserved 
poetry and figure, which takes away all ' absurdity.' " 

And are English writers, who use the same absurd lan- 
guage as do the Romans and the Greeks, converted into 
sensible men by the same process ? What of Comus, whom 
"dew-drops dip all over?" — "We are highly favored in that 
case. Spirits and nymphs abound. We have only to imagine 
the dew to be some elfin sprite which picks up the Leader 



ALTAR BAPTIZED BY SPRINKLING. 349 

of fun and ' dips him all over ' in some convenient pool, 
and all is rational. Some might suppose that it would be 
better to get rid of the 'absurdity' by allowing a secondary 
meaning to dip (?6^),but having once refused any secondary 
meaning to the Greek 'dip,' and having been compelled to 
give that up and to admit dge as a true meaning, it would 
look too bad to have to concede, still farther, the meaning 
to wet. In refusing this meaning to the Greek word, we 
must do the same to the Latin, and the English word, and 
rely solely upon poetry and rhetoric to help us out." 

And what do you saj^ of the "immersion by sprinkling" 
of Triptolemus ? — " Oh ! Sir Walter Scott, you know, was 
a poet. And although this statement is made in very plain 
prose, yet the ' absurdity' must be taken out of it by put- 
ting into it a strong poetic afflatus. He was figuratively 
dipped. 33 

It would seem, then, that this very " absurd" mode of ex- 
pression has been very widely adopted by Greek, and Latin, 
and English writers. And if we should choose to speak of a 
dipping, or an immersion, by sprinkling, we shall use language 
with just the same "absurdity" as that with which it has 
been used by the learned and the wise among all cultivated 
nations for some thousands of years. — "Ah! but they used 
clip and immerse with a modified meaning." 

And can you not give us the benefit of a like license of 
usage? — "No; for, then, we must abandon the theory — 'one 
meaning, dip, plunge, sink, immerse, immerge, submerge, bathe, 
whelm, overwhelm, &c, &c, through all Greek literature.' " 

Well; keep this very remarkable "one meaning," which 
is so free from " absurdity;" but do spare us, in the interpre- 
tation of our language, the sublimities of poetry or the pro- 
fundities of rhetoric. We mean to speak in the most un- 
adorned prose. And with our hand upon the garment which 
Hippocrates " dips " by sprinkled coloring drops, we will 
venture to defend the altar baptized by sprinkled napthar, 
even though somebody should think it very "absurd" to 
contradict their theory by talking like the classic Greeks and 
Romans. 



350 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

Napthar = KaOaptfffioq 

In the term, "purification," applied by !N"ehemiah to this 
fire-water after he had purified the altar with it, we see how 
words obtain wider extensions of meaning. 

Purification, properly, denotes an effect produced by some 
agency. But, here, that term denotes the agency itself. 

In precisely the same manner, that which produces a con- 
dition of cleansing (iSaTrrtff/xa) takes its name from the con- 
dition effected. Thus Anastasius speaks of water as "bap- 
tism," because it effects a baptism. " Baptism is poured into 
water-pots, and they are baptized by the baptism poured into 
them." (Bibl. Patr., v, 958.) Baptism, here, cannot mean 
immersion, because there is no immersion effected. That 
which is employed to effect the thorough cleansing peculiar 
to baptism, has obtained the name of the effect produced. 

So, " two baptisms," water and blood, come from the 
Saviour's side. 

Napthar, wine, sanctified water, heifer ashes, were agencies 
which, severally, had "power," "virtue," "force" to bap- 
tize by sprinkling and otherwise, Stourdza to the contrary, 
notwithstanding. 

AMBROSE. 

Ambrose says : " This baptism was especially significant 
of Christian baptism." It is not Christian baptism, but it 
is a baptism; and by reason of the agencies operating, and 
the nature of the effect produced, it had a vividness of sig- 
nificance beyond ordinary type baptisms. The sacrifice of 
Abel's lamb was significant of the great atoning sacrifice 
of Calvary; but the sacrifice of Isaac, by his father, was a 
far more significant type of the sacrifice of "the only be- 
gotten Son of the Father." 

The resemblance between the baptism of Nehemiah and 
Christian baptism is expressly declared by Ambrose. It is 
not found in any form of act done, nor in any resultant covered 
condition. It consists in the use of fire and water, as agen- 
cies, and in the purified condition consequent upon their 
influence. " I thiuk that we cannot be iguorant as to this 



ALTAR BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING. 351 

fire, since we learn that the Lord Jesus baptizes by the Holy 
Spirit and fire. What, then, means the fire made water, and 
the water kindling the fire, except, that spiritual grace by 
fire, burns, and by water, cleanses our sins." 

This is Ambrose's own exposition; and how utterly it 
ignores a dipping, I need not say. 

COMMON FEATURE. 

This is the last of those baptisms with which miracle is 
(really or supposedly) associated. In glancing back over 
them we see many diversities in them, and some points of 
resemblance. Their common fitness to shadow forth the 
baptism of Christianity cannot be in the things in which 
they differ; nor can it be in minor points in which they 
agree. There must be some one, bold, outstanding point of 
agreement by which they are fitted to fulfil the same duty. 
There is one, and but one, such point of agreement. It is 
found in a change of condition inducing purification. The 
action in the baptisms is diverse without, in any case, ap- 
proaching to the form of dipping. The mode of using the 
water is diverse without any approach to a covering. The 
point in which they agree, without exception as Patristically 
interpreted, is the resultant condition of purification. 

No one has studied Patristic baptism to any purpose who 
has not learned, upon its very threshold, that purification 
was its sine qua non feature. How they used the water is 
not included in the present discussion. The business, in 
hand, is to prove that the transactions passed in review were 
called by them baptisms, and the ground on which they were 
so designated. The evidence determining these points may 
be found within the domain of Judaic baptisms, without 
trespassing on that of Christian baptism. We claim that 
they were called baptisms, because they exhibit a thorough 
change of condition; and types of Christian baptism, because 
the change was from impurity to purity. 

This napthar baptism makes a clear path for Dr. Fuller 
to make farther progress in the right direction. Having 
abandoned modal dip for " immerse in any way," even by 



352 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

"pouring if continued long enough to cover;" and having 
yielded up pouring long enough to cover, for "pouring long 
enough to drench;" he may now drop the " drenching," and 
change the pouring into sprinkling. 

We may, also, congratulate "R. Ingham" on the very 
great relief which he must experience by the discovery, that 
the " dear babes brought to have a good work wrought on 
them" will not require "twelve barrels" of water to be 
poured over them. A sprinkle will suffice. 



BAPTISM BY SPKING WATEK. 

CEREMONIAL PURIFICATION. 

Judith 12 : 5-9. 

" And the servants of Holofernes brought her into the tent, 
and she slept until midnight; and she arose at the morning 
watch. 

" And she sent to Holofernes, saying, Let my lord, now, com- 
mand that thy handmaid may go out for prayer. 

"And Holofernes commanded his body-guard not to hinder 
her; and she remained in the tent three days, and went out 
nightly into the valley of Bethulia, and baptized herself in the 
camp at the fountain of water. 

" And as she went up, she besought of the Lord God of Israel 
to direct her way to the raising up of the children of her people. 

" And entering in pure, she remained in the tent." . . . 

Septuagint. 

Kdi e^enopeusro xard vuxra eiq ttjv <pdpayya BeroXoba, xa\ IpaxTi^ero 
ev rfj izapep.fioXf) In) T7}q Tcyiyrjq rob uSaroz. 

Kai wq aviftT)) idiero rob Kopioo 6eob ^IaparjX. . . . Kai £?(T-opeuop.lvr) 
xo.6apd xapip-eve ttj axr^rj .... 

What the Theory says. 

CARSON. 

"This ought here to have been translated she dipped her- 
self. ... It is evident that though she was in a camp, she 
was in such a part of it as afforded her the necessary seclu- 



BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 353 

sion. . . . We neither imagine nor assume that Judith was 
immersed in water. It is from the established meaning of 
the word, not from views of independent probability, that 
we must derive our knowledge of the fact. Even were the 
fact improbable in itself, the testimony of the word would 
establish it. ... I care not if there had not been a fountain 
at all in Bethulia, she might have been immersed without 
it. If from other places I prove that immerse is the mean- 
ing of the word, this, in every situation, will provide the 
water. We refuse, then, to be gauger of the fountain of 
Bethulia; let them dip it who need the evidence. . . . 

" I care not whether she was immersed in the fountain, or in 
a cistern, or bath beside it. The historian understands that it 
was in the fountain. The preposition, indeed, does not desig- 
nate this, but it is often used when in might have been used. 
That the historian meant that she was immersed in the foun- 
tain, is plain from his speaking of her praying immediately 
on ascending. . . . It cannot be known, or rationally admitted, 
that she was dipped, but on the testimony of this word. . . . 

" Was it not usual to have stone troughs at fountains, for 
the purpose of watering cattle ? . . The immersion is proved, 
not by the preposition, but by the verb; and though at a foun- 
tain does not signify in a fountain, yet it is consistent with it. 
... Is it not evident, on the face of the document, that Ju- 
dith went out from the camp to the fountain at Bethulia, for 
the purpose of bathing, or washing her whole person ? . . . 
Why did she go to the fountain? Why did she leave the 
tent? Could not a small basin of water have served the 
purpose of successive washing? . . . 

"All my opponents endeavor to take advantage of my 
candor in proving the secondary meaning of i?^™, taking it 
for granted that this equally applies to fia-ziXw. Let fia-rcW 
show as good evidence of a secondary meaning, as I have 
shown on the part of /?«rrw ? and I will, without controversy,, 
admit the fact." 

FULLER. 

"She bathed in the fountain. She was, of course, dressed 
in proper apparel. . . . As if to leave no doubt, however, as 

23 



354 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

to her bathing, it is expressly said, that ' she came out of the 
water.' The pretence, that bathing would have been indeli- 
cate, is absurd." 

CONANT. 

"According to the common Greek text, this was done 'at 
the fountain,' to which she went, because she had there the 
means of immersing herself. Any other use of water, for 
purification, could have been made in her tent. . . . There 
was evidently no lack of water for the immersion of the 
body, after the Jewish manner, namely, by walking into 
the water to the proper depth, and then sinking down till 
the whole body was immersed." 

ARGUMENT OF THE THEORY. 

Admissions. 

It is admitted by the friends of the theory, that there are 
no incidental circumstances connected with this baptism of 
Judith, which show that a dipping did, in fact, take place. 

One of the most marvellous things connected with this 
cast-iron theory, is the utter failure to show, by incidental 
facts, that a dipping or a covering of the body in water ever 
took place. There is no such evidence to show, that in a 
single instance, for fifteen hundred years, the body was dip- 
ped into water in effecting a Jewish purification. 

This marvel is only paralleled by that other marvel, to wit, 
the courageous conflict with facts, which declare that no such 
dipping took place, in the hope that some weapon in the ar- 
mory of poetry or rhetoric may win a triumph for quasi dip- 
ping. It is of no consequence whether the facts are, washing 
at a tent-door in the sight of all Israel, pouring on a lofty 
mountain summit, sprinkling a temple altar, or walking 
across the dry channel of a river, the theorist, without the 
winking of an eye, undertakes to rosecrucianize these base 
materials into dipping gold. 

It is admitted that, in this case, no favor for dipping can 
be got from the prepositions. These prepositions are ete, h 
and e-\. The efc, however, does not take down into the water, 



BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 355 

but "into a valley." And although Dr. Carson says, going 
into a valley will answer very well lor an immersion (when 
you cannot get anything better), still, he does not insist upon 
it on this occasion. We have also h in connection with 
,3a-zuaj — Ija-zi'zru) h baptized in — yet this is not here in- 
sisted upon as pointing out a dipping, and indicating the 
element in which the dipping takes place, for the dipping 
would, then, be not in the water but in the camp. Might if 
not be worth while, here, to review the argument which de- 
rives evideuce for a dipping from h da/a^ and h vepiXg? If 
instrumental force be not allowed to the preposition, why go 
beyond naked locality? The sea was dry, and the miracle- 
cloud was just as dry. If an enclosure was made by the re- 
mote water-walls, there was, perhaps, as lofty and certainly 
a more closely investing enclosure of army tents, to say 
nothing of the valley-walls. Indeed, we are only saved 
from having these army tents and deep valley sides flung in 
our faces as charming elements of a poetical dipping, by the 
fortunate presence of "a fountain." 

A baptism "in the camp " is felt to be not the most favor- 
able position for dipping the entire person of Judith. There- 
fore Carson says: "It is evident, that though she was in a 
camp, she was in such a part of it as afforded her the neces- 
sary seclusion." Where the "evidence for seclusion " is, I 
do not know. It is in evidence that these fountains of Be- 
thulia were captured ; and the great hope for capturing the 
city was in holding securely the fountains whence the sup- 
ply of water for the inhabitants was derived. It is in evi- 
dence that Ilolofernes, after he "took the fountains of their 
waters, set garrisons of men of war over them." (7 : 7.) And 
it is in evidence, that the camp was just as close unto, or as 
deeply in, this fountain, as was the baptism of Judith. The 
very identical terms which bring her baptism into relation 
with the fountain, are employed to denote the relation of the 
camp to the fountain. " They encamped in the valley near 
Bethulia, at the fountain — btt rr t <; w^c" What now becomes 
of the, "It is evident, that though she was in the camp, she 
was in such a part of it as afforded her the necessary seclu- 



356 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

sion ?" It is worth just as much as ninety-nine parts out of 
a hundred of all the utterances of the theory, in attempting 
to get rid of facts, and to thrust in a dipping into Jewish 
purifications. That is, it is worth just nothing at all. 

But Dr. Carson is not satisfied with the repudiation of 
these facts, in order to secure a secluded place within the 
camp. He takes the lady "out of the camp" entirely. "Is 
it not evident that Judith went out from the camp to the foun- 
tain of Bethulia, for the purpose of bathing or washing her 
whole person?" (p. 459.) Why, yes; it is just as evident 
that Judith "went out of the camp," in going to that point 
which was specially garrisoned, as that the millions of Israel 
were "dipped in the sea," or that the sea-coast w T as " dipped 
in the tide," or that the altar on Carmel was " dipped in the 
on-poured water." Yes, just as " evident ! " 

If Judith had "gone out of the camp " from the tent of 
Holofernes, she would have had a long night-walk. The 
army and its followers made up about a quarter of a million 
men. " And they camped in the valley, near unto Bethulia, 
by the fountain, and they spread themselves in breadth over 
Dothaim, even to Belmaim, and in length from Bethulia 
unto Cyamon, which is over against Esdr^elon. And the 
children of Israel said, 'Now will these men lick up the face 
of the earth; for neither the high mountains, nor the val- 
leys, nor the hills, are able to bear their weight.' " (7 : 3, 4.) 
"We dismiss, then, this — " it is evident " that she was in a 
secluded place, and out of the camp, and could therefore with- 
out embarrassment engage in " bathing or washing her whole 
person." Does " out of the camp" translate & -aps/iJoXy? 

Dr. Fuller does not take this heroine out of the camp, nor 
is he very solicitous for a secluded place, seeing that "she 
was, of course, dressed in proper apparel." 

This "of course," of Dr. Fuller, wakes up as quiet a smile 
as the " it is evident," of Dr. Carson. Why " of course," Doc- 
tor? Are spectators from "the garrison" admitted to this 
baptism ? And of what did this " proper apparel " consist ? 
Was an orthodox "bathing robe" provided for these nightly 
dippings? When did the enrobement take place, before 



BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 357 

leaving the tent, or at the fountain? When did the disrobe- 
nient take place, after going back to the tent, or on coming 
out of the dipping? Would not the putting on and off this 
"proper apparel" require as much seclusion as the use of 
none at all ? The "of course she was dressed in proper ap- 
parel" does not help much "the washing of her entire per- 
son in the camp.'' This "in the camp" is a thorn in the 
side of the theory. 

It is admitted, that the preposition bcl has neither aid nor 
comfort for the theory. Still, this is but a gnat compared 
with the camels which the theory has become familiar with 
swallowing. And, after all, it is about as good as if it were 
If, for " the historian understands that it was in the fountain." 
It is a little odd, to be sure, that Dr. Carson should know 
that the historian understands one thing, when he says quite 
a different thing. But, I suppose, the same figure of speech 
which converts one act into some other act, will suffice to 
convert an historical statement into a very different concep- 
tion in the mind of the historian. It is freely admitted by 
Carson that u at a fountain does not signify in a fountain;" yet 
Dr. Fuller very dogmatically affirms (p. 39), "she bathed in 
a fountain." Perhaps he thought that the discovery made 
by his friend ought to be made use of. And it was very 
natural for him to conclude, that "in the fountain" would 
be of more practical value if incorporated in the text, than 
by remaining "in the understanding of the historian," since 
few persons would have the wit to find it in the latter place, 
unless they were deep in the mysteries of the theory. Thus 
we have the amended text — "she bathed in a fountain." 
This i-\ is an annoyance. The camp was pitched — &rt rjy? -yrfq 
— "at the fountain," and every one is willing for them to 
remain outside of the fountain. Judith was baptized — 1-\ 
Tr t q -T t yi t z — "at the fountain," and the theorists insist that she 
must be put inside of the fountain. 

It is admitted that the dimensions of this fountain are un- 
known. Yet every theorist seems ready to declare, if needs 
be, under oath, that it was large enough for Judith to go 
into it and "immerse her entire person." As this point, in 



358 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

which alone he feels any interest, is fully settled to Dr. Car- 
son's satisfaction, he refuses "to be the gauger of it," and 
bids those "dip it" who care to do so. 

Dr. Conant knows why she went to the fountain, although 
the narrative is silent on the subject. 

"She went because she had, there, the means of immers- 
ing herself." He says, that he knows this because he knows 
something else, touching which the narrative gives no infor- 
mation to any one else — "any other use of water for purifi- 
cation, could have been made in her tent." Does Dr. Conant 
know, that water for immersion could not have been used in 
her tent ? And is Dr. Conant quite sure that Judith believed 
with him, that water " for purification " (furnished by unclean 
heathen men in unclean vessels) could have been used in 
her tent in any form, with propriety ? Why did she refuse 
to share in the meat and drink brought from the table of 
Holofernes? "And Judith said, I will not eat thereof, lest 
there be an offence ; but provision shall be made for me of 
the things that I have brought." Now, if this Jewess could 
not partake of the food from Holofernes' own table because 
it was " unclean," is it well considered in Dr. Conant to say, 
"any other use of water for purification could have been 
made in her tent ? " How could she use in a religious rite the 
water furnished by heathen, when she could not use their 
food for an ordinary meal ? Without caring to say, that I 
have special knowledge on this point, may I not ask — If this 
is common sense, what becomes of the exclusive knowledge, 
that she went to the fountain for the purpose of immersing 
herself? Why not for water free from heathenish pollution? 

But Dr. Carson knows that she dipped herself, and Dr. 
Fuller knows that she bathed herself, and Dr. Conant knows 
that she immersed herself, — where ? Why, in the fountain 
from which the Bethulians got their drinking-water, and 
from which " the garrison " guarding that fountain, got their 
water. Well, this is certainly a little remarkable, that a lady 
should go and "wash her entire person" in a drinking foun- 
tain ! However, these learned men say, that they know that 
she did it. We must, then, set down this lady Judith as re- 



BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 359 

markably solicitous for her own "purification," and remark- 
ably regardless of the purification of the waters for those 
who drank after her nightly washings! 

But there is another item of assured knowledge furnished 
us by Dr. Fuller — "As if to leave no douht, however, as to 
her bathing, it is expressly said that she 'came out' of the 
water." 

No wonder dippings, and bathings, and immersings, are 
furnished to order, when they are accepted on authority like 
this. 

By whom is it "expressly said that she came out of the 
water ? " Why really by no one. For it takes two to make 
up this statement. First, the English translator, who is 
responsible for the "come out," and second, Dr. Fuller, 
w T ho is responsible for the addendum " of the water." Then 
it should read — "It is expressly said by the English trans- 
lator, and by me, that she came out of the water." Is it not 
amusing to hear a conclusion builded on such a foundation, 
which is to relieve the subject of all doubt? No one knows 
better than Dr. Fuller that the translation of aue,3rj by "come 
out " is without the shadow of authority. And when Dr. 
F. adds — "it is expressly said that she came out of the water " 
no one knows better than he, that neither in the English 
translation, nor in the Greek original, is there any such 
"express" statement. And this is Dr. Fuller's "best card," 
which is to leave "no doubt as to her bathing !" 

What shall be said of such a statement? Why, we must 
sa} T , that it is pure fiction, and will sadly mislead every one 
who trusts in it. And what shall be said of Dr. F. ? Why, 
that he is just as honest and true as any other thoroughly 
mistaken Christian man. lie will promptly acknowledge 
his error when his attention is called to it, and, doubtless, 
will say — "My statement w T as made incautiously and erro- 
neously. I should have said, It is expressly stated — 'and 
when she went up,'" — and to this should have been added, 
"I do most confidently believe, that this refers to her 'going up 
out of the water.'" Had it been "expressly" said, "she 
came out of the water," it would have mattered very little 



360 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

what Dr. F., or I, might have believed as to the matter; but 
in the absence of any such statement, I have as much right 
to "believe confidently" that no such fact ever took place, 
as he to believe the contrary. And if I can give better 
reasons for my faith, then my confidence is better justified. 

As to these reasons let me appeal to facts. 1. Judith went 
out, of her tent, into the valley of Bethulia. She could not 
go into a valley, without going down from a higher to a 
lower position. 2. This descent brought her " by the foun- 
tain" where she baptized herself. 3. After her baptism she 
went up out of the valley to her tent. 4. She entered into 
her tent. These are the facts as to the -movements of this 
Jewish lady. I cannot say, that it is expressly stated that 
she did not " come out of the water," for there is not a sylla- 
ble said as to her going in or coming out. But I can say, 
that the word relied upon to prove such movement has other 
duty to perform. It is in proof that Judith went down into 
the valley ; and it is in proof that she went up out of the valley. 
"We need &v£(3t) to effect a movement the existence of which 
is in proof. If any other movement is introduced into the 
case, through exigencies of the theory, words must be found 
outside of the history to meet the new demand. 

To enforce this interdict against pressing foifty into this 
water service, I would refer to Genesis 24 : 15, 16, — " And 
behold Rebecca went out (iSeitopiuero) and went down (xa-a- 
p&ffa) by the fountain (jbtl tyjv mjpjv), and filled her water-pot, 
and went up (dvipy)." All the leading words in this refer- 
ence are identical with those in the passage under consider- 
ation. The preposition indicating the proximity of Judith 
and Rebecca is precisely the same. The verb which ex- 
presses the movement of these females, after their respective 
missions to the fountain were accomplished, is the same. If 
that word did not bring Rebecca " out of the water," how 
will it bring Judith ? If that word carried Rebecca up out 
of the lower ground of the fountain, why shall it not do the 
same kind office for her sister Jewess? 

I would, also, refer to chap. 7 : 8, 12, 17, 18, of the same 
book, in which this baptism is related. We, there, find the 



BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 361 

record of a transaction in connection with this same foun- 
tain. It is proposed to take possession "of the fountain of 
water which flows from the foot of the mountain." In the 
execution of this project "they pitched their camp in the 
valley, and took the waters, and the fountains of the waters 
of the children of Israel." Having effected this object, " the 
children of Esau went up — avifaaav — and encamped in the 
hill country." I presume no one will contend that these 
sons of Esau went up out of the water to reach the hill coun- 
try. And very few, I presume, will care to say, — "It is 
expressly stated that Judith came out of the water" and, thus, 
prove her bathing beyond doubt. The assumptions of the 
friends of the theory are very abundant ; their facts are very 
deficient. 

"At the Fountain." 

It is insisted upon, that going to a fountain for baptism 
necessarily carries with it a dipping of the person into the 
waters of the fountain. 

" Why did she go to the fountain ? That she was im- 
mersed in the fountain is plain." (Carson.) " She bathed in 
the fountain." (Fuller.) " She went because she had there 
the means of immersing herself." (Conant.) 

Let us test this assertion, also, to see whether it be any- 
thing more than an assumption. 

In Classic Baptism (p. 330) we have the account of a per- 
son who was baptized at a fountain without being dipped, 
bathed, or immersed in its waters. He neither "went into 
it " nor "came out of it." Had he gone into it, and dipped, 
or bathed, or immersed himself in its waters, he would not 
have been baptized by it. 

Baptism, at this fountain, was effected, not by dipping into 
it, but by drinking of it. Thus, " the virtue " of this fountain 
was developed. Silenus, the special friend of Bacchus, " took 
possession of" the drinker. Brought under his controlling 
influence, the condition of the drinker is thoroughly changed. 
He is baptized by the Silenic fount, and resembles one who 
is made " heavy-headed and baptized " by Bacchus. These 



362 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

baptisms of Silenus and of Bacchus " resemble " each other 
as closely in their mode and nature, as do the "jolly god" 
and his " tipsy follower " resemble each other in character. 
The one baptizes at the banquetting-table, the other at the 
fountain. But whether at the festive board or at the bub- 
bling spring, the baptism is effected by drinking. A man 
dipped into a wine cask does not receive the baptism of 
Bacchus. A man dipped into this fabled fountain does not 
receive the baptism of Silenus. These drunken deities do 
not, after such mode, "take possession" of their votaries. 
We have here the most absolute proof of a baptism " at a 
fountain," without any dipping, bathing, or immersing in 
the fountain. Thus we estop the reasoning which makes at a 
fountain equivalent to in a fountain. Thus, also, we arrest 
the reasoning which makes a /oimtazn-baptism necessarily a 
dipping-baptism. 

To this it may be replied : " Although a fountain appears 
in each of these baptisms, still, the cases are not parallel. 
The fountain of Silenus was imbued with a peculiar quality, 
the controlling influence of which was developed only by 
drinking; but the fountain of Bethulia had no such quality, 
and therefore a baptism at this fountain must be by dipping 
into its waters." Truth and error mingle together in this 
objection. It is true that this fountain of Classic story did 
possess a peculiar quality which could not be developed by 
dipping, (and therefore disproves the theory — " no dipping 
no baptism,") but was developed by drinking. It is also 
true that the fountain of Bethulia had no such quality as the 
fountain of Silenus. And it is farther true, that we cannot 
reason conclusively from baptism by drinking at one foun- 
tain, to baptism by drinking at another fountain. For every 
fountain may not yield up its virtue through the same chan- 
nel. But it is error to conclude because the fountain of 
Bethulia is not imbued with the same "virtue" as that of 
the fountain of Silenus, therefore it is not imbued with any 
"virtue" at all. It is also error to conclude, because the 
"virtue " of this fountain is not developed by drinking, there- 
fore it must be developed by dipping. 



BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 363 

The "virtue " which belonged to this fountain in the val- 
ley, was a specially purifying quality. The Jews were taught 
to regard living water, running water, spring water, as hav- 
ing a puri tying power above standing or dead water. The 
use of " living water " was especially enjoined in their ritual 
purification. (Levit. 13:50-52; Numb. 19:17, &c.) 

Josephus designates this "living water," of the Hebrew 
and the Septuagint, by the same word which is used in the 
passage before us — rfc ~rjp~q — spring water. (Ant. Jud., iv, 4.) 

While, therefore, this fountain had no intoxicating quality, 
it had, in the estimation of all Jews, and especially of this 
very religious lady, an eminently purifying quality. It was 
to secure the purifying quality of this spring water that 
Judith " went down into the valley to the fountain." If the 
old man, at the fountain of Silenus, was baptized by drink- 
ing its waters, (their " virtue" thus taking possession of him, 
and thoroughly changing his condition,) then, the youthful 
Jewess was baptized at the fountain of Bethulia, by using 
its waters in ahy such w T ay as would develop their " virtue" 
so as to " take possession " of her, thoroughly changing her 
condition. And this is as certain as the mathematical axiom, 
"things that are equal to the same thing, are equal to each 
other." Saratoga Springs yield their " virtue" to drinking. 

Thus Classic baptism utterly repudiates the assumption, 
that because a baptism took place " at a fountain," there 
must have been a clipping in the fountain. 

But Dr. Carson will not confide the cause of dipping in 
the fountain to such unfriendly auspices as l™ i% ra^. " I 
care not whether she was immersed in the fountaiu, or in a 
cistern or bath beside it. . . Was it not usual to have stone 
troughs at fountains for the purpose of watering cattle?" 

Alas! is the theory so merciless, that, rather than spare 
this Jewish lady a dipping, they will make her lie down in 
" a trough for watering cattle?" 

It is hard to tell which to admire most, "the washing of 
her entire person" in the fountain of which others were to 
drink, or the purifying of herself " at the fountain" in a 
horse-trough ! . 



364 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 



SHE BAPTIZED HERSELF. 

But the apology for all this extravagance, is " the word," 
"the word!" 

"It cannot be known, or rationally admitted, that she was 
dipped, but on the testimony of this word. The immersion 
is proved, not by the preposition, but by the verb." She 
was baptized. And ^a-Kxi^m means dip, and nothing but dip, 
through all Greek literature. 

As the friends of the theory confess that a dipping cannot 
be got out of this transaction, except through the naked 
word /?a7rr£'Cw, it becomes a necessity to follow them into this 
last retreat. 

Iu their conclusion, that the phrase — "she baptized her- 
self in the camp at the fountain of water " — can give them 
no help except it be found "in the word," I think all will 
agree. 

The hope to secure a dipping, through " the word," will 
be found, by bitter experience, " to feed on ashes." 

Meaning Obscure to the Theory. 

It is obvious, that when three different meanings are as- 
signed to a word by three intelligent men, each affirming 
that the word has but one meaning, the meaning of that 
word is, probably, but obscurely apprehended by any of 
them. 

Drs. Carson, Fuller, and Conant, all declare that pa—i'u) 
has but one meaning. Each one claims to know, as well as 
he knows his own name, what that meaning is; and each, 
writing with declared critical accuracy of the same transac- 
tion in which that word appears, gives to it a different 
meaning. 

One (Carson) says, it means to dip; which meaning it never 
has. Another (Fuller) says, it means to bathe; which mean- 
ing it never has. A third (Conant) says, it means to im- 
merse; which meaning (carrying with it the idea of limita- 
tion of time) it never has. There must be some radical de- 



BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 365 

feet, when critical scholars, starting from the same premises, 
cannot walk together in the same path; but one turns off to 
the right hand, another to the left hand, and a third thinks — 
in medio tutissime ibis. 

It is not pertinent but trifling with their readers to say, that 
although none of these words expresses the meaning of the 
original word, yet that meaning underlies all these words; 
and we know very well what it is, and it is very easy to state 
it, and our object in writing elaborate treatises is to translate 
it, and to tell all about it; yet we will not say what it is, but 
we will state a dozen words which it is not, and out of them 
you may find the meaning as well as you can. We should 
be eluded "with bated breath," if we fail to find out the 
meaning, seeing that, of these scholars, one says: "I have 
found it, it is dip" And a second cries, "I have found it, 
it is bathe." And a third responds, "You must be mistaken, 
I have found it, it is immerse." Is there no fourth to arise, 
(like the umpire in the chameleon dispute,) who shall say, 
" Good friends, you all are wrong; I have found it, and have 
it here, and if, when brought forth, you do not find it plunge, 
I will eat it!" Yes, Stourdza will do this. 

Condition, not Act, Expressed. 

In the phraseology, "she baptized herself," there is no 
form of act expressed; and all the theorists on earth might 
spend a lifetime in guessing, and they could no more deter- 
mine the question as to the act performed, than they could 
tell, by like guessing, what kind of a spade Adam used, or 
what kind of a spinning-wheel Eve employed, in those days 
when "Adam delved and Eve span." 

Let me state other cases of baptism expressed by similar 
phraseology: " Seeing him baptized." "I am one of those 
yesterday baptized." " Whom having baptized." "Whom 
it were better to baptize." 

In all of these cases &amL*u> is used absolutely, as here ex- 
pressed. If the word is capable of expounding itself, and 
making known, in the clearest and most definite manner, a 
form of act, then there will be no difficulty for any one in- 



366 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

r 

itiated into the mysteries of this word, to tell us what was 
the one modal act performed in these several baptisms. If 
the wealth of all the Indies were offered as the prize, it could 
not be done. If Webster's last quarto should be taken, and 
all the forms of act between A and Z were gone over, there 
would be no approximation to the truth. For there is no 
definite act expressed. 

In the first case, the word expresses a condition of mental 
bewilderment. The second case, expresses a condition of 
drunkenness. The third, expresses a condition of drugged 
stupor. The fourth, is the condition of drowning in the sea. 

Such facts of usage show that the statement — "Judith 
baptized herself" — might mean, she brought herself into a 
condition of bewilderment — or drunkenness — or stupor — or 
drowning. 

What shall be thought, then, of the bold promise to find 
out by this naked "word," a definite act done? 

Is relief sought by assuming the position, that this is a 
case of literal baptism, and such baptisms can only be by 
one definite act ? 

I answer, 1. It is nothing but naked assumption to pro- 
nounce this a case of literal, physical baptism. To appeal 
to the word, is to go back on a track which has just been 
found to be barren of all friendly results. To call upon 
"fountain" — " bcl" — "dvipiq" — is to call for reeds which have 
already been broken and can yield no support. To appeal to 
facts of usage in such cases, is to attempt to prove a propo- 
sition by a result which is itself yet to be proved. Also, it 
is an appeal to that which has no existence. There is no 
evidence of Jewish ritual purification through all the period 
of the law — fifteen hundred years — by dipping the entire per- 
son in water. Judith sought purification; and it is nothing 
but an absolute assumption to say, that this required her 
person to be put under the water. 

I answer, 2. It is not true, by the showing of the theorists, 
that the covering of the entire person by water is necessary 
to a physical baptism. It is declared that Noah was literally 
and physically baptized in the ark; while it is admitted that 



BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 367 

he was not covered by the water. It is affirmed that the 
Israelites were literally and physically baptized at the Red 
Sea; yet it is admitted that they were not covered by the 
water. It is affirmed that Elijah's altar was physically bap- 
tized; yet it is admitted that it was not covered by the water. 

How does it happen, that under all these diversities there 
is a most cast-iron certainty as to the manner of Judith's bap- 
tism? Would not "the pouring of twelve barrels of water" 
suffice ? 

I answer, 3. A physical baptism is precluded because there 
is no case of similar phraseology in physical baptisms, ex- 
cept in such as involve destruction of life. Baptism always 
expresses unlimited duration in its continuance. That dura- 
tion never terminates by the force of "the word." This is 
a vital, nay, the most vital, and universally present element 
in all the usage of the word. To take it out of the word, 
and make it express limitation of time, would be giving it 
a secondary meaning with a vengeance. This idea of un- 
limited continuance, (so far as the word is concerned,) ap- 
pears in every case of secondary usage, and grows out of 
that grand and essential characteristic of the primary use. 
Therefore, 

I answer, 4. This was a case belonging to secoudary bap- 
tism. Proof of this is found (1.) In the fact that spring water 
can purify, ritually, without covering the body. The Classic 
and the Jewish world, alike, are filled with exemplifications 
of this statement. Sprinkling purifies, ritually, as com- 
pletely as pouring, bathing, or any other use of water. 

Because of this quality, (enabling it to change the condi- 
tion of the person on whom it was sprinkled,) it was capable 
by sprinkling, of baptizing. Any one who will deny this, 
"kicks against the pricks" of all Greek literature. 

(2.) Judith came to the fountain for purification. She 
came to be baptized by the ritually purifying power of spring 
water. That is to say, she came to have her present condi- 
tion of ceremonial impurity changed to one of thorough 
ceremonial purity. Does not this state the facts of the case 
in the fullest and most definite manner ? Now remember 



368 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

that when the phrase — "she came to be baptized by the 
ritually purifying power of spring water," is abbreviated into 
the phrase — "she came to be baptized" — the whole force of 
the omitted words become merged in the one word "bap- 
tized;" and that word by such addition, by the laws of lan- 
guage, now expresses the idea of purification in its repre- 
sentative character. 

(3.) This change of condition, the baptism effected by the 
spring water, was not evanescent. She went up from the 
fountain purified. She prayed to God for imperilled Israel, 
purified. She entered into her tent, purified. 

Here is that vital and universally present feature of bap- 
tism — a continuance of condition without any self-limitation 
of that continuance. 

There is no such feature in the dipping, or the covering 
of "the theory;" and therefore it is an error. A dipping 
into water neither is nor can be a baptism. 

Israel "baptized into Moses" did not emerge from their 
baptism for the space of forty years. Israel " baptized into 
Joshua" did not emerge from their baptism during "all the 
days of his life." Judith baptized into ceremonial purity at 
the fountain of Bethulia, did not emerge from her baptism 
until taken out of it by some defiling influence. 

This is the teaching of the Classics. There is no limit 
of time when the lost ship shall emerge from its baptism, 
or when the drunken man, or the bewildered man, or the 
opiately stupefied man shall emerge from his baptism. 

Secondary Meaning. 

Dr. Carson makes this complaint: "All my opponents 
endeavor to take advantage of my candor in proving the 
secondary meaning of fidxTw, taking it for granted that this 
equally applies to paicciZv. Let ^anriZm show as good evidence 
of a secondary meaning, as I have shown on the part of pd-rw, 
and I will without controversy admit the fact." 

If this complaint is well grounded, Methuselah must have 
been young in years compared with Dr. Carson. The proof 
of a secondary meaning to fid-™ has been in existence for 



BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 369 

some centuries beyond a thousand years. It only remained 
for Dr. C.'s friends to profit by his "candor" in accepting 
the meaning urged by his opponents. 

As to the evidence of a secondary meaning to ISanr^w, (the 
primary meaning being, the change of the condition of an 
object by its intusposition within a closely investing medium 
without limitation of time, the secondary meaning being, 
the thorough change of condition, without limitation of time, 
of an object by some controlling influence, without intuspo- 
sition,) a limited portion of this evidence may be found in 
the following facts : 

1. The condition of heated iron is represented as changed 
(baptized) into a condition of coldness by water. Water is, 
here, represented as an agency effecting this change of con- 
dition by its quality of coldness. If it should be objected, 
" This change might be effected by the immersion of the 
hot iron in cold water." I grant it; but reply, this is not 
what is said. And demand in turn the admission, that the 
quality of coldness in water is capable of controlling and 
changing thoroughly the condition of hot iron without any 
immersion. 

2. It is said, that the condition of a sober man is changed 
(baptized) into the condition of a drunken man by means of 
wine-drinking. It cannot be objected, in this case, that the 
same change of condition may be effected by the immersion 
of a man in a hogshead of wine; for it is obviously and con- 
fessedly untrue. Such an immersion would produce a bap- 
tism, but as different from the other as light from dark- 
ness, or as life from death. It is most irrational, therefore, 
to say that these baptisms have any relation, in kind, to each 
other. It follows, consequently, by necessity, that there is a 
baptism in which no intusposition exists in fact or by imagi- 
nation. 

3. It is said, that a man who drinks of the fountain of 
Silenus is like to a "baptized" man. But there is no con- 
ceivable resemblance between such a one and an immersed 
man. There is a resemblance to a drunken man. " Bap- 
tized," therefore, is here employed to denote, directly, a 

24 



370 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

drunken condition. The change of condition, in one case, 
is likened to the change of condition, in the other case. In 
neither case is there any possibility of immersion. 
Such proof of a secondary meaning is absolute. 

4. It is said, that Bacchus is baptized by water poured into 
wine. It is impossible that wine should be immersed by 
water poured into it. For the same reason it is impossible 
that the word, here, can mean " immersed." The condition 
of wine is thoroughly changed by water poured into it, and 
this condition, (without immersion,) is expressed by (kucrtCm. 
It has, therefore, a secondary meaning. 

5. Josephus says, a man ceremonially impure is baptized 
by heifer-ashes sprinkled upon him. It is impossible that 
he should be immersed by these ashes. The word, there- 
fore, cannot possibly mean, here, " immersed." But these 
ashes do, by their purifying quality, thoroughly change the 
condition of those upon whom they are sprinkled. They 
are brought out of a condition of ceremonial impurity into 
a condition of complete ceremonial purity. This change of 
condition is expressed by p.a7er((a>; and being without intus- 
position it has passed to a secondary meaning. 

6. Origen says, the altar, with its sacrifice, was baptized 
by water poured upon it. The altar and holocaust were not 
immersed in water. The Greek word, therefore, does not, 
here, mean "immersed." The condition of the altar and 
sacrifice was thoroughly changed. They passed out of a 
condition of ceremonial impurity into a condition of cere- 
monial purity. This change of condition is expressed by 
Pa-KTiZu); and being without intusposition exhibits, again, its 
secondary meaning. 

These instances of usage representative of many others, 
Classic, Jewish, and Patristic, prove a secondary meaning 
for paTtriZio, as unanswerably as the " candor" of Dr. Carson 
has succeeded in showing, to his unbelieving friends, to be- 
long to pdltTU). 

The principle of development, in the two cases, is not 
merely the same, but the form of development is almost 
identical. 



BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 371 

The object of Parent is dipped into fluids colorless or col- 
ored. 

In the former case the secondary meaning which would 
result must be a state of wetness. This is exemplified in the 
wet state of Nebuchadnezzar produced by the night-dew. 
But to this secondary meaning the "candor" of Dr. 0. did 
not attain. But certain objects dipped into colored liquids 
became, thereby, colored. Hence the word which caused the 
coloring by its act of dipping, was applied to the coloring 
of objects when the act of dipping was not present. Thus 
arose the secondary meaning to dye, without dipping. 

The object of ^anri^w J s brought into a condition of in- 
tusposition within a fluid element, not by the transient act 
of dipping, but by any competent act, and never removing 
its object out of this new condition into which it has been 
introduced. Some objects (rocks and other impenetrable 
masses) are not affected by this change of condition. Other 
objects, (human beings, penetrable and soluble substances,) 
are powerfully affected, according to their nature, and the 
characteristics of the investing element. From the effects 
thus produced, by intusposition, on this class of objects, pro- 
ceeds that secondary meaning of fta-ri^a)^ which is expressive 
of controlling influence, without intusposition as the indu- 
cing cause. The word, out of whose demand the controlling 
influence originally proceeded, is still retained to express 
the condition resultant from influence when exerted under 
modes of development other than that with which it was 
originally associated. 

If the friends of the theory seek to take the life of this 
word in secondary development, by the aid of monster beau- 
ties in poesy and rhetoric, the answer is: The same troop of 
"beauties " will as readily murder /5«7rrw ? second, or any other 
word that has passed to a secondary meaning. 

What proves too much, proves nothing. 

The condition of Judith was changed from that of cere- 
monial impurity to one of ceremonial purity, by the influ- 
ence of" living water;" and this change, without intusposi- 



372 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

tion, tSanri^w is competent, and is, in fact, used to express. 
The circumstances and the phraseology of the statement 
unite to declare that the word is so used here. 

To enforce this conclusion against the dogmatic assertion 
of Dr. Carson and friends, I will adduce an exemplification 
of the unreliability of his judgment as to words, in attribut- 
ing to them one unswerving meaning. 

UepixXu^a). 

There was a washing of Judith previous and preparatory 
to her going to the camp of Holofernes. This washing is 
expressed by the word icepaXb^m. It is the same word used 
to express the washing of Tobias at the river Tigris: "And 
when the young man went down (to the river) {jzepixkuaaadat) 
to wash himself." (Tobit 6: 2.) 

This passage having been quoted by President Beecher, 
Dr. Carson thus comments (p. 445): "But Mr. B.'s criticism 
on the Greek word xA6£w, here employed for washing, is en- 
tirely false. He expounds the word as signifying a washing 
all round, just as a man stands in a stream and throws the 
water all over his body, and washes himself by friction. 
Mr. B. criticizes from imagination, not from a knowledge of 
the language. Has he justified his criticism by a single ex- 
ample ? He seems better acquainted with the different cir- 
cumstances in the operation of bathing, than with the occur- 
rences of the word on which he undertakes to criticize. The 
simple word signifies to deluge, to overwhelm, to inundate, 
to flow over anything, and is generally applied to water flow- 
ing or rolling in a horizontal manner. . . . There is no fric- 
tion nor hand washing in this word. It performs its purpose 
by running over, either gently or with violence. The word 
does not signify that the young man, in bathing, splashed 
about like a duck, or rubbed himself like a collier, but that 
he threw himself into the river that the stream might flow 
over him. He was then baptized, indeed, and much more 
than baptized." 

This criticism is in the usual Carsonic style : supercilious 



BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 373 

toward the utterances of others; self-complacent in his own, 
as the embodiment of absolute truth. 

In reply, Dr. Beecher refers, among other quotations, to 
the washing of a child — vSait neptxXu£etv (Aristotle); and the 
w T etting by spray — a<ppa> neptxXu&fievov, (Lucian.) Such pas- 
sages do effectually take the underpinning from beneath the 
claims of Dr. C. to critical accuracy. 

No less so does this washing of Judith, related 10 : 2: 
"She rose and went down " (not into the river or fountain, 
but) "into the house, and washed her body all around with 
water — -episxlvoazo to <rwfxa udart — and anointed herself with 
precious ointment." 

Now, what becomes, in the presence of this statement, of 
the dictum, that it is " entirely false " to expound the word 
as meaning a "washing all around?" What is the worth 
of the declaration, "the word signifies that he threw him- 
self into the river, that the stream might flow over him ?" 
Does this same word, also, signify that Judith, in her house, 
" threw herself into the river, that the water might flow over 
her?" Or, does the word "signify" that the water "deluged, 
overwhelmed, inundated, flowed or rolled over her in a hori- 
zontal manner?" Does it "signify " that Judith was in the 
water {udart, with water) at all? "Most assuredly; ignorance 
itself should know that the word will supply the water." 
Well, when the word cries out, under the tutorage of Dr. C, 
for water to deluge and roll over the lady Judith, what is the 
response from the Bethulians? Here it is: "All the vessels 
of water fail all the inhabitants of Bethulia. And the cis- 
terns are emptied; and we have not water to drink our fill 
for one day; for we give drink by measure. Therefore our 
young children are out of heart, and our women and young 
men faint for thirst, and fall down in the streets of the city 
and by the passages of the gates, and there is no longer any 
strength in them. And all the people assemble, both young 
men and women and children, and cry with a loud voice, 
and say, * Deliver the whole city for a spoil to Ilolofernes 
and to all his army. For it is better for us to be made a 
spoil unto them, than to die for thirst.'" 



374 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

And, in the midst of this wailing from parched lips and 
tongues cleaving to the roofs of their mouths, Dr. C. would 
have us believe, that this Jewess " throws herself into a water- 
bath, that the water may flow horizontally over her!" 

The Jew Apelles may believe this; the Eethulian Jew 
will not. 

Dr. Carson may " make ^anxi^a) find water in a desert," 
but he cannot make Treptx^w find "a deluge, and an inunda- 
tion, and an overwhelming, and a flowing over" of water in 
Bethulia, whose people are dying of thirst. 

Judith must be left quietly in her house, " to wash her 
body all around with water," using so much as she may be 
able to get, notwithstanding the faith of Carson should de- 
clare all such action, under TtepuXb^a), to be " entirely false." 

WASHING FOR PRAYER. 

This washing having been stained by the defilements of 
the idolatrous camp, Judith goes to renew her purification 
at the fountain of Bethulia. At her previous washing, in 
her house, we are expressly told, that " she pulled off the sack- 
cloth which she had on, and put off the garments of her 
widowhood, and washed, . . . and put on the garments of 
gladness." 

Here is the whole process of disrobing and enrobing. 
Where is all this, or anything like this, at the theory dip- 
ping, when "she baptized, in the camp, at the fountain ?" 

Homer makes Telemachus "wash his hands, of the hoary 
sea, before prayer to Minerva." Hesiod inculcates " the 
washing of hands, in pure water, before prayer." Ovid 
teaches "the washing of hands, and the sprinkling of the 
head with water, before prayer." The Jewish priesthood 
washed their hands and feet before engaging in religious 
worship. Aristeas says: "It is customary for all Jews to 
wash their hands with sea-water, when they would pray to. 
God." Philo declares, "It is the custom of nearly all others 
to sprinkle themselves for purification with pure water, many 
with that of the sea, some with that of rivers, and some with 



BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 375 

that which, in vessels, they have drawn up from wells." Bat 
when this Jewish heroine comes to the running water to bap- 
tize (purify) herself for prayer, she finds encamped there a 
troop, under the hold leadership of "the theory," who de- 
fend the passage, and refuse to recognize any permit from 
Holofernes, or from " an angel from heaven," except the 
shibboleth — "no dipping no baptism" — be first accepted, 
and the lady be pledged "to wash her entire person in the 
fountain," (or, at her option, purify (?) herself in the horse- 
trough,) the garrison of heathen soldiery being witnesses to 
the faithful performance of the requirement! 

The theory is more pitiless than the Assyrian Holofernes. 

And, now, having gone through, in detail, the features of 
this last case of baptism in the Apocryphal writings of the 
Jews, it might be well asked, (if the theory were not full of 
castles in the air,) Could anything be more foundationless 
than the attempt to dip this fair Jewess, nightly, in the 
camp, at a fountain surrounded by its special garrison of 
soldiers ? 

But, where interpretation is so generally phenomenal, any 
new case ceases to awaken surprise. 

The Apocryphal writers fully agree with the interpreters 
of the Canonical Scriptures as to the usage of BA11TIZQ. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



(877) 



JEWISH BAPTISMS. 



It was my purpose to have introduced, here, all the cases 
of Judaic baptism mentioued in the New Testament; but 
have concluded to defer those practised during John's min- 
istry until his baptism shall be under consideration. 

Paul interprets the Jewish ordinances, and calls them 
"baptisms," just as do the Patrists, without the slightest re- 
gard to any modal act of dipping into or covering over with 
water, or anything else. 

An illustration of this statement will now engage our at- 
tention. And although more than a century has elapsed 
since the record of Judith's baptism, we will find the usage 
of the Greek word unchanged. 

"VARIOUS KINDS OF BAPTIZINGS." 
Hebrews 9 : 9, 10. 

" Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were 
offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that 
did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience; 

"Which stood only in meats and drinks and diverse baptiz- 
ings; carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of 
reformation." 

3I6»ov jTTj ftpd>/ia<rt xai 7z6[ia<n^ xat dta<popo(.q fiamiaiioiq, dtxatcu/iara 
aapxoq. 

Diverse Baptisms. 
After having examined the endless variety presented in 
the baptisms passed in review we are well prepared to hear 
the inspired Apostle speak of " various kinds of baptizings." 
But such language must have a painful and ominous sound 
to the ear of the theory. It compels it, once again, to as- 
sume an apologetic attitude. We have been chidden for 
speaking of the mode of baptizing. " To speak of the mode 

( 379 ) 



380 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

of baptizing was as absurd as to speak of the mode of dip- 
ping. The word expressed mode and nothing but mode." 
The theory, then, has the embarrassing task to explain how 
it happens that Paul speaks of "diversity" in that which is 
nothing but mode, and the most wonderful example of uni- 
formity in mode which the history of language presents. I 
do not say that the theory cannot show, that what the Apostle 
says is diverse, and what it says is uniform, agree perfectly 
together. After having witnessed demonstrations that bap- 
tism by pouring means baptism by dipping, I am quite pre- 
pared to listen to another demonstration proving that diversity 
is uniformity. 

PATRISTS. 

Diversity of baptisms was a truth quite familiar to Patristic 
writers. 

Hilary, i, 519, under the heading "Baptismata sunt di- 
versa," speaks of the baptism of John, the second baptism 
of the Saviour (alio baptismo baptizari), the baptism of the 
Spirit, baptism of fire, of judgment, and the baptism of 
martyrdom. These baptisms are all diverse in manner and 
matter. 

Ambrose, iii, 424: "Multa sunt genera baptisrnatum," 
(1248,) "plurima baptisrnatum genera praemissa sunt." 
Among these "many, very many kinds of baptisms," he 
enumerates as "one kind, the healing of the leprosy of 
iNaaman; another kind was the purging of the world by 
the deluge; a third kind, when our fathers were baptized 
in the Red Sea; a fourth kind, in the pool (Bethesda), 
when the water was troubled; a fifth kind was the ascent 
of the axe out of the water; and a sixth kind was the casting 
wood into the fountain and the sweetening of the waters." 

The diverse character of these baptisms is obvious at a 
glance. 

Basil, ii, 632, ed. Ven. : "John the Baptist says, I indeed 
baptize 3^011 with water into repentance, but he shall baptize 
you by the Holy Spirit, and many such things. But as much 
as the Holy Spirit differs from water so much, evidently, also 



DIVERSE BAPTISMS. 381 

he who baptizes by the Holy Spirit excels him who baptizes 
with water, and the baptism itself." 

The Apostle uses the same word to point out the differ- 
ences among Jewish baptisms, as Basil uses to indicate the 
difference between water baptism and baptism by the Holy 
Spirit. The difference between these latter baptisms cannot 
be a difference in the dipping or the covering; for in bap- 
tism by the Spirit there is neither dipping nor covering. 
Kor can it be a difference as to the objects baptized — "cups, 
pots, skins" — for the objects are the same, human beings. 

III, 1532: "I think that we should learn, in brief, the 
diversity between the baptism of Moses and that of John — 

rr t v diacpopdv rub xard MwTxria iSa-rttrparoq ~poq rd rob 'Icvdwou." It is 

obvious that if a baptism begins and ends with a modal act 
or covering, there can be no difference between such act or 
covering under the direction of Moses or of John. The ex- 
position of these baptisms, therefore, cannot be found in any 
such direction. 

IV, 125 : " Why then compare baptisms which have noth- 
ing in common but the name, while the difference of things — 
ij 6k -a><; -pay/id-a)'; d'.a<popa roffaurrj — is as great as between a dream 
and the truth, or a shadow and the substance?" 

How diverse was the view of Basil of baptism from that 
of the theorists ! He declares that between Jewish and 
Christian baptism there is nothing in common but a name; 
while they labor, in ways most extravagant, to show the 
most perfect uniformity. 

Chrysoslom, ii, 366 : " John exhorted the Jews not to cher- 
ish hopes of salvation through diverse baptisms and purifi- 
cations of waters, — obx h fianrcapolq dcayopotq xai xaOapixo'iq uddrwv." 

The distinction made by Chrysostom between "diverse 
baptisms" and "purifications of water" leads directly to the 
conclusion, that among the diversities of baptisms there 
were some not effected by water. And this is true, for some 
baptisms were by the sprinkling of blood, of heifer-ashes, &c. 

Justin Martyr (Op. Sp.), 1340: "The law released from 
blame, daily, transgressors, by certain sprinklings, and sac- 
rifices of animals, and diverse kinds of baptisms — dia<popo.~tq 



382 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

paicTifffjLdTwv — but grace grants only one baptism." It is prob- 
able that the writer intended to include the " sprinklings" 
and "the sacrifices" among the diversities of baptism. This 
is the understanding of Matthies (Baptismatis Expositio, p. 
17): " Verum enim vero apud Judeeos tota vocis," baptizare 
seu baptismus " potestas istis purgandi ritibus continetur 
iisque proreus concluditur, ita ut qusevis lustrationes dici 
possint baptismi — But truly among the Jews the whole 
force of the word baptize or baptism is thoroughly expressed 
by those rites of purification, so that any lustrations what- 
ever may be called baptisms." 

Gregory Nazianzen, ii, 353: •" Come let us inquire some- 
what concerning the differences of baptisms,- — vepl dtayopdq 
paTiTi<T[j.dTwv — that we may go hence purified. Moses baptized, 
but with water, and previously with the cloud and sea. And 
John baptized, but not Judaically, nor yet with water only, 
but, also, into repentance; but not wholly spiritually, for he 
does not add, 'with the Spirit.' And Jesus baptizes, but 
with the Spirit. And this is perfect. ... I know a fourth 
kind of baptism, that which is by martyrdom and blood, 
with which Christ himself was baptized. And I know yet 
a fifth, the baptism of tears, — washing — Xobwv- — nightly, hi3 
bed with tears. . . . Perhaps, then, they will be baptized 
with fire — rw nopt — harder to bear and longer in duration, 
the final baptism." 

If any value is to be attached to the judgment of these 
Greek writers as to the meaning of fta-nrga), in such relations, 
it is a point made out, that so far from a dipping or a water 
covering constituting the alpha and the omega, neither of 
these things entered into the conception of the word at all 
in such use. Baptism was a conception myriad-sided, pre- 
senting multiplied diversities as to nature, and no less mul- 
tiplied diversities in the modes of accomplishment. Amid 
these diversities there is this one element, which is always 
to be found, — a thorough change of condition. The nature of 
the condition may vary endlessly, as may the cause inducing 
it and the mode of its operation; but, still, condition as a 
present element is a sine qua non. 



DIVERSE BAPTISMS. 383 

The use of h>uw, by Gregory, reminds us of the statement by 
Dr. Carson, that this word is limited in use to animal bodies, 
and requires that its object shall be covered with water. 
Neither of these features is present in the case related. The 
"bed" is not an animal body, nor is the bed "washed" by 
being "covered over" with tears. It is wholly insufficient 
to talk about hyperbole. It is quite enough of extravagance 
to imagine the bed to be superficially wet all over with tears. 
To be asked to imagine the bed to be enveloped in a watery 
covering of tears is insufferable. Nor does the literal use 
of the word justify any such extravagant figure. A baptism 
is sought to be got out of every case of " washing." Water 
may be found to cover " the couches; " but tears will not be 
fouud in the actual world, or in the world of imagination, to 
immerse this bed. But it is no greater blunder to seek a 
solution of this "tears baptism" in a hyperbolic immersion 
of this bed, than to seek a solution of the "altar baptism" 
in a hyperbolic immersion of the bullock, wood, and stones. 
Dr. Fuller says, Origen, " one of the most impassionate of 
men," figuratively calls the effect of pouring the water, a 
baptism. 

He defends the interpretation by quoting from Hamlet: 

"What would he do, 
Had he the motive and the cue for passion 
That I have? He would drown the stage with tears." 

"Whether Gregory was "one of the most impassionate of 
men" I do not know; but if Dr. Fuller will take the altar 
poured upon, the bed washed, and the penitent sinner sprin- 
kled with tear-drops, as honestly baptized, we shall certainly 
be making progress. 

However, when an author writes a book entitled "the act 
of baptism," and opens it with the portentous words, " Saved 
or Damned," and then expounds a baptism in which " the 
act" is left out, it reminds one of the adage associated with 
the play which the Doctor has quoted: "Hamlet, with the 
part of Hamlet left out." 



384 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 



CLASSICS. 

The Patrists, in their view of diverse baptisms, differ, in no 
respect, from the Classics. They say that Mosaic, Johannic, 
and Christian baptisms, are diverse, on the ground that the 
agencies inducing them are of diverse " power," and there- 
fore induce diverse conditions. The Classic writers teach 
us precisely the same truth in connection with wine, opiates, 
and cold water. The power of these agencies is diverse, and 
they induce diverse conditions — baptisms. A condition of 
intoxication, a condition of stupefaction, and a condition of 
coldness, are all diverse conditions. And these diverse con- 
ditions the Classics call baptisms, " diverse baptisms." 

The manner of using these agencies to effect these bap- 
tisms, was endlessly diverse; yet this fact is not singled out 
for discussion or explanation, because it does not appear to 
have entered into the mind of Classic or Patristic writers, as 
needing either discussion or explanation. The only vital idea 
in a baptism, is thorough change of condition. This was effected, 
primarily, by intusposition within a closely investing medium. 
The manner in which such intusposition was accomplished, 
was a thing wholly extraneous. This change of condition was 
effected, secondarily, without intusposition, by any agency 
competent to the end. 

And as every Classic and Patristic writer knew, that to 
raise the question, how intusposition, primary, was effected, 
was to raise a question wholly foreign to the case ; so, also, 
they knew that there was no place for the quo modo of bap- 
tism, secondary. Drinking wine, eating an opiate, pouring 
cold water, sprinkling sacrificial blood, had the same equal 
and absolute right to appear for duty on such occasions. 
They, therefore, do not discuss any such diversities. They 
are recognized and spoken of as accidents, which are indif- 
ferently present or absent. The word baptism has nothing 
to do with modes of action. But baptism has to do, first 
and last, with condition. And the conditions to which it is 
applied are so diverse, and so alien from each other, that, as 
Basil says, "they have nothing in common but the name." 



DIVERSE BAPTISMS. 385 

These diverse baptisms (conditions effected by agencies 
greatly diverse in their powers, and applied in modes un- 
limited in their diversity) are largely discussed by Patristic 
writers. 

Judaic baptism belongs, exclusively, to baptisms of the 
secondary class. It is causative, distinctively, of a condi- 
tion of ceremonial purification. The diversities which enter 
into it, are due to the diverse causes — "dead body," "bone," 
"leprous person," "market," &c, — inducing defilement; 
and the diverse agencies, — simple water, water and heifer 
ashes, blood, &c, — employed to remove these defilements; 
as also to the diverse modes — washing, pouring, sprinkling 
— in which these agencies were employed to develop their 
baptizing power. 

The diverse baptizings of the Apostle, and the diverse 
baptisms of the Patrists, are in the most absolute accord 
with the diverse baptisms of the Classics. That the former 
differ in kind from the latter, is only confirmatory of the 
diversity of baptisms, and establishes the statement of Am- 
brose, "plurima baptismatum genera." 

CARSON. 

That the "diverse baptizings" are included in the "carnal 
ordinances," (ordinances of the flesh,) is a matter of universal 
acknowledgment. It is also certain, that " the blood of bulls 
and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, 
sanctifying to the purifying of the flesh" is an exposition of 
the " ordinances of the flesh" Now, the " ordinances of the 
flesh" embrace "meats, and drinks, and diverse baptizings;" 
and if "the sprinkling of the blood of bulls and of goats, and 
the ashes of a heifer," does not enter into " meats and drinks," 
it must be found in "diverse baptizings." 

This, however, is strenuously objected to by friends of the 
theory, and, as usual, with special vehemence by Dr. Carson, 
lie says, "the sprinklings under the law cannot be included 
under the baptisms, but might be included in the carnal 
ordinances." True, "the sprinklings" are in the carnal 
ordinances, but only because "the baptisms" are there. 

25 



386 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

The sprinklings and the baptizings are the same tiling under 
diversity of designation. The sprinkling expresses the mode 
in which the agency was employed, and the baptizing indi- 
cates the controlling influence attendant upon the agency so 
applied. 

Dr. Oarson farther asks: "How do we know that w"hat 
are here called ' divers baptisms,' were performed by sprink- 
ling and effusion ? Can this be done in any other way .than 
by ascertaining the meaning of the word baptism by the 
usage of the language ?" And then to determine this usage, 
he appeals to case after case of use, as far removed in char- 
acter from the case in hand, as the poles are in distance from 
each other. As well might Dr. Gale repudiate Carson's plea 
for dyeing the lake, on the ground that usage has settled the 
meaning of ildTtra), and proceed, in vindication of his position, 
to adduce cases in which it does, unquestionably, mean to 
dip. The position of the theorists, now, in relation to pmniZm^ 
is just the same with that which they formerly assumed with 
respect to /5a^rw. The same shifts of "figure," which are 
appealed to under embarrassment, now, were used, under 
like circumstances, then. 

Dr. Carson goes on to ask: "Does he refer to the bap- 
tisms what was done with the sprinkling of the blood ? 
There is not the semblance of truth for the assertion. The 
subtilty of Satan himself cannot plausibly contrive to force 
these sprinklings into the divers baptisms." 

Notwithstanding the Doctor's opinion as to what "the 
subtilty of Satan " can accomplish, there are very man}' who 
believe that Paul, without any such aid, has quite "plausibly 
contrived to force these sprinklings into the divers bap- 
tisms." 

But Paul does not stand alone in this achievement. Am- 
brose has been no less successful. This is his language: 
" Per hyssopi fasciculum aspergebatur agni sanguine qui 
mundari volebat typico baptismate." (i, 875.) "He who 
wished to be purified with typical baptism was sprinkled with 
the blood of the lamb by a bunch of hyssop." 

I do not know how much of "subtilty" or "force" there 



DIVERSE BAPTISMS. 387 

may be in this statement, but I do know that, by very direct 
statement, sprinklings are brought into unity with baptisms. 
The same writer (iii, 399) says again : " Qui enim baptizatur, 
et secundum legem et secundum evangelium videtur esse 
mundatus; secundum legem quia hyssopi fasciculo Moyses 
aspergebat sanguinem agni." "For he who is baptized, both 
according to the law and according to the gospel, is seen to 
be made pure; according to the law, because Moses, with a 
bunch of hyssop, sprinkled the blood of the lamb." 

If language be designed to express thought, and not to 
conceal it, then Ambrose has placed, not " plausibly," but 
absolutely, "the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb" among 
the diverse baptizings. 

Let us note the success of another in this same impossible 
(according to the theory) direction. 

JosepllUS (Jew. Ant., iv, 4) says : " ^ai:ri(Ta\>Teq re xaX T7JS Ti<ppa~ 
TauTTj~ if? ~Vf r / v , sppatvov rpkiQ xal ipdopy) tujv rjjiepwv — and also bap- 
tizing by this ashes put into spring water, they sprinkled on 
the third and seventh day." 

This embraces the other sprinkling — ashes of the heifer — 
mentioned by Paul. Now, with such help from Ambrose 
and Josephus, I do not see why any one (with subtilty far 
less than that usually attributed to Satan) might not be able, 
without force, to identify these sprinklings with those "divers 
baptizings." 

Let it be observed, that neither Ambrose nor Josephus 
confounds sprinkling and baptism, so as to make the sprink- 
ling the baptism and the baptism the sprinkling. They 
make the baptism to depend, in the one case, on the influ- 
ence of the blood of the lamb, which is applied (not of neces- 
sity but of fact) by sprinkling. In the other case, the bap- 
tism is effected through the ashes of a heifer; the influence 
of which, also, is developed, in fact, by the act of sprinkling. 
The blood, the sprinkling, and the purification, are as dis- 
tinct as are the wine, the drinking, and the intoxication. 

Because the sprinkling is not a dipping, or because it is 
not " continued long enough" to produce a covering in blood 
or in ashes and water, it is concluded that there is no bap- 



388 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

tism. But such forget that there are baptisms by influential 
agencies, as well as mersions in physical substances. 

Sacrificial blood, and emblematical ashes and water, sprin- 
kled have as much power to baptize, as the intoxicating or 
drugged cup drunk, has power to baptize. If wine drunk, 
baptizes (without mersion) into intoxication, the blood of the 
lamb sprinkled, baptizes (without mersion) into purification. 

If Satyrus could baptize (without mersion) into stupefac- 
tion, by means of a few opiate drops mixed with wine, why 
could not Moses baptize (without mersion) into ceremonial 
purity, by means of a few drops of ashes mixed with spring 
water ? 

If clean linen may be bapted (dyed) by sprinkling blood upon 
it, as truly as by dipping it into blood, why may not an 
unclean man be baptized (made ceremonially clean) by the 
sprinkling of clean water upon him, as truly as by his being 
dipped into clean water? If pdnTw can lay aside a dipping, 
why cannot pamiZto lay aside a mersion ? 

Dr. Carson will not deny, that sacrificial blood, and the 
ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, were competent 
thoroughly to change the condition of the ceremonially un- 
clean, making them thoroughly ceremonially clean; for by 
such denial he would place himself in direct antagonism 
with the clearest teachings, and ritual provisions, of the 
word of God. But should he deny, that this thoroughly 
controlling influence of blood, and ashes, over the condi- 
tion of those upon whom they were sprinkled, can be justly 
termed baptism; then, he places himself in antagonism with 
the teachings of all profane Greek literature. And if he 
denies, that this influence, controlling condition, is in fact 
called baptism; then, he places himself in antagonism with 
all Patristic literature which treats of Jewish purifications; 
as, also, with the Jewish historian who was personally con- 
versant with, and a participant in those observances. 

The "subtilty of Satan" will be more severely taxed to 
get these sprinklings out of the " divers baptisms," than to 
force them into them. 

"Will "the theory" venture to make the trial? 



SYMBOL BAPTISM. 389 

JUDAIC AND JOHANNIC BAPTISM. 
SYMBOL BAPTISM. 

. . . paxTtGnu) ffuvtsvat • ouzw yap Try; fi&icrtGW a-odsxzrys abrw yavslaOau, 
jj.ij he) Ttvmv d/jLapzddwv 7zapaLzr t 6ti ypiopivwv, a/A' ly uyszta ~uu GW/iaTos, 
uts dij xai ryq <t'0X?,S dtxatoffu\>7j ~puexxsxaOapiii^r^. . . . 

"For Herod slew him (John the Baptist), a good man, and 
exhorting the Jews to cultivate virtue, and observing upright- 
ness toward one another and piety toward God, to come for 
baptizing (purifying) j for thus the baptism would appear accep- 
table to him, not using it for the remission of sins, but for purity 
of the body, provided that the soul has been, previously, purged 
by righteousness." — Josephus, Jew. A?it., xviii, 6. 2. 

The Latin translation of this passage by Yalesius, in his 
edition of Eusebius (ii, 116), is as follows: "Quippe hunc Herodes 
obtruncaverat, cum esset vir bonus, Judajosque ad virtutis stu- 
dium excitaret, praecipiens ut juste quidem inter se, erga Deum 
autem pie agentes, ad lavacrum accederent. Tunc enim demum 
acceptum Deo fore lavacrum aiebat, cum eo non ad expiationem 
criminum uterentur, sed ad corporis munditiem, ut mentibus 
jam ante per justitiam expurgatis, corporis quoque adderent 
puritatem." 

BAPTISM OF JUDAISM AND OF JOHN MET TOGETHER. 

This quotation shows very clearly that Josephus, as well 
as the Patrists and the apostle, believed in "divers bap- 
tisms." This diversity, as between Judaic and Johannic 
baptisms, is made both distinct and broad. The one bap- 
tism is a purification of the body; the other is a purification 
of the soul. In the one case the agency effecting the puri- 
fication is water ; in the other it is righteousness. "Righteous- 
ness" is not represented as an element within which the soul 
is to be immersed; but the agency by which the purified 
condition of the soul is to be accomplished. The same must 
be true of the water used in effecting the other purified con- 
dition, that of the body. Water, as ritually used by the 
Jew, was not used to remove physical pollution, but cere- 



390 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

rnonial. Its competence for this duty did not depend upon 
any natural quality; but upon a communicated quality de- 
pendent upon its appointment to this use. In view of such 
appointment it was possessed of a " power," when used by 
sprinkling or otherwise, to change the condition of the body, 
removing it out of ceremonial pollution into ceremonial 
purity; as truly, as "righteousness" had power to change 
the condition of the soul, removing it out of a condition of 
spiritual pollution into a coudition of spiritual purity. 

DIVERSITY. 

Josephus, in common with all other writers quoted, rep- 
resents the water used in Jewish purifications as an efficient 
agency, and not as an element within which mersion is to take 
place. But in his view water no longer occupies the posi- 
tion of an efficient agency in John's baptism. John's bap- 
tism is of the soul and not of the body. Water is used in 
this baptism ; but not as having power to control spiritual 
results. 

The historian still represents water in its Jewish aspect, as 
having power to purify the body; which becomes a symbol 
of, or complementary to, the full purification of the entire 
man, when the soul is purified hj " righteousness." 

I do not now enter upon the discussion as to the perfect 
correctness of the view of John's baptism as entertained by 
Josephus. That will come up hereafter. It is enough, in 
passing, to indicate the fact recognized by him as to the 
essential difference in their nature, and the no less essential 
difference in the agencies by which they were effected. 

But Josephus could have no misconception as to Judaic 
baptism. And he tells us, that it consisted in a condition of 
physical ceremonial purity induced by the ritual agency of water, 
ashes, $>c, used in sprinkling. 

Having, now, passed in review all the evidence within our 
reach as to the nature of Judaic baptism, together with the 
agencies and their manner of use in its accomplishment, and 
having heard from Jewish lips the announcement of another 
baptism, a higher and better, even than that of the Fore- 



RESULTS. 391 

runner; we will here pause to look back upon our course 
and gather up some of its results, in order to our better 
preparation to determine the question, which is next in order, 
What teas John's baptism? 

RESULTS. 

Material for Judgment 

1. We have before us adequate material for an intelligent 
determination as to the distinctive character of Judaic bap- 
tism, as well as for the confirmation of conclusions previously 
reached in Classic Baptism. 

The number of facts embraced in the investigation is not 
less than fifty, and the number of times in which the Greek 
word, in one form or another, appears, is more than three 
times fifty. 

The facts are all taken from Jewish sources, from writings 
both inspired and uninspired. Ten Jewish writers employ 
the word in application to their religious rites and to matters 
apart from religion. 

Christian writers, with one consent, interpret these facts 
of Jewish religious history as cases of baptism. 

The time embraced by the usage of this word by Jewish 
writers, in application to their religious rites, extends through 
several centuries. 

Such varied and abundant material leaves nothing to be 
desired for the intelligent determination of the meaning: of 
this word from usage. 

Usage, of Jew and Greek, harmonious. 

2. The usage of this word by Jewish writers is in the most 
perfect accord with the usage of Greek Classic writers. 

By this statement I do not mean to aflirm that the Jew 
uses PamlZto only in the same applications as the Greek; 
but I mean to say, that whatever application they make of 
the word, religious or otherwise, they are governed by the 
same principles and in recognition of the same fundamental 
meaning. 



392 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

(1.) There is no dipping in the Jewish use of the word. In 
all the instances cited from the writings of Joseph us and 
Philo, in the translations of Syrnmachus and Aquila, in the 
facts of the Old Testament and of the Apocrypha, there is 
not a single case in which it is stated that the baptism was 
by dipping, or in which there is any adequate inferential 
evidence to show that the baptism was effected by the modal 
act of dipping. 

Jewish and Greek usage are, here, at one. 

(2.) The Jew recognizes baptisms of intusposition without 
limit of time as to their continuance. These baptisms are 
of two kinds. Those in which no influence is exerted over 
the baptized object. As in the case of the sword of Simon 
baptized into his own body. The sword exerts a destruc- 
tive influence, but no influence is exerted over the sword 
by its mersion. So, in the case of the axe fallen into the 
Jordan. The iron is not affected by its watery envelop- 
ment. Those in which controlling influence is exerted over the 
baptized object. Such cases are those of ships sunk to the 
bottom of the sea; and of the human race baptized in the 
waters of the deluge. These baptisms are attended with in- 
fluences absolutely controlling in their power. And, herein, 
they are most essentially distinguished from the preceding 
cases of baptism, and give origin to the secondary usage of 
the word in which mersion disappears, and a changed con- 
dition stands alone. 

(3.) The Jew employs verbal figure to indicate the source 
and nature of the baptizing influence, without demand for, 
or allowance of, intusposition. 

Thus, Josephus speaks of " baptism into insensibility and 
sleep." This phraseology is modelled after the form which 
is expressive of the introduction of an object within a physi- 
cal substance for the purpose of securing the full influence 
of the enveloping material. Cases of this character may be 
found in Classic Baptism, p. 266. Objects are introduced, 
baptized, " into the water (efc rd udwp,") " into the lake (sfe rip 
MjLvyv"), " into milk (eicydXa yuvaudq"), " into the blood (efc rd 
■cup-a"}. In all these cases there is intusposition for an in- 



RESULTS. 393 

definitely prolonged time of the object within the water, the 
lake, the milk, and the blood; and in all of these cases the 
intusposition is not an end, but a means to an end, namely, 
to secure a full development of influence; and in each 
case the influence developed is peculiar. The pole smeared 
with pitch, mersed into water impregnated with an aurifer- 
ous quality, becomes incrusted with gold. Human beings 
mersed, in simple water of the lake, are drowned. A medi- 
cal prescription mersed, in woman's milk, becomes emollient. 
A hand mersed, in the bloody pool of the battle-field, be- 
comes fitted to write, in gory characters, " vanquished, not 
conquered." It is most obvious, |that there can be no inter- 
change among these enveloping elements, substituting the 
one for the other. " Woman's milk" cannot be substituted 
for " gold impregnated with water," into which a pitch- 
smeared pole may be mersed in order that it may be gilded. 
Nor can gold-water be substituted for woman's milk, in order 
that a mersed blister or pessary may be made more sooth- 
ing. Lake-water cannot be substituted for blood, that a 
hand mersed into it may write a battle record. Nor can the 
crimson flowings of gory wounds be substituted for lake 
waters, in which a vanquished host may be mersed, and 
drowned. No more can the its avaiad^aiav xa\ u-vov of Josephus 
(into which Gedaliah was baptized) be transformed into gold- 
water, lake-water, woman's milk, human blood, or anything 
else whatever. There is as much of irrationality in putting 
Gedaliah, by imagination, into a water-pool, as there is in 
putting a pitched pole into woman's milk to extract gold. 
" Insensibility and sleep" must remain insensibility and sleep; 
just as " gold-water" must remain gold-water ; and "woman's 
milk" must remain ivoman's milk. 

But it may be said, a man cannot be put within "insen- 
sibility and sleep;" must we not then convert (in imagina- 
tion) these things into fluids, that Gedaliah may be put 
within them? I answer, no; (1.) Because it is beyond the 
power of imagination to convert " insensibility" or "sleep" 
into distinctive fluids. (2.) To imagine them to be fluids 
without a distinctive character, would be as irrational as to 



394 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

confound gold-water and woman's milk. (3.) To put Geda- 
liah within any fluid would never answer Josephus's purpose; 
but would put him into that sleep "which knows no wak- 
ing." 

Josephus never meant to put the imagination under bonds 
to accomplish the impossible absurdity of putting a man 
within a liquefied insensibility and sleep ; nor yet the im- 
possible conception of putting him within them under any 
condition. 

Is it asked, "Why then does Josephus use the phraseology, 
* baptized into insensibility and sleep ' ? " I answer, because he 
means to express a condition characterized by the controlling 
influences of " insensibility and sleep." For this purpose he 
conjoins these things with fta-nr^a) e!g; phraseology used in 
physics to secure the development of any distinctive influ- 
ence belonging to its adjunct. Thus ^anriZm elq with gold- 
water, with lake-water, with woman's milk, with human 
blood, indicates the full influence distinctively attaching to 
these several elements over an object mersed in them for an 
indefinitely prolonged period. And when conjoined with 
" insensibility and sleep," it denotes the full influence dis- 
tinctively belonging to these elements over the object brought 
within their control, not by mersion within them, (for this is 
impossible whether of reality or of imagination,) but in that 
way which is appropriate to the case, and which is expressly 
stated by Josephus, namely, by excessive wine-drinking. 

The office, then, of the phrase panrlZw &<r, is to conduct us, 
in thought, to those cases where influence is sought as the 
end, and mersion is used as the means; while its adjunct, 
"insensibility and sleep," teaches us that the end only is to 
be retained, and the form for securing that end is to be re- 
jected as unsuited to the case. 

In all this, the Jew is in perfect accord with the Greek. 
It has been abundantly shown in Classic Baptism, that con- 
dition resultant from controlling influence, and secured with- 
out mersion, was placed, without hesitation or discrimina- 
tion, among baptisms. Josephus exhibits this truth in the 
clearest and strongest manner, by using the complete phrase- 



RESULTS. 395 

ology of verbal figure. The hand is bapted, not by dipping, 
(the mode is rejected,) but by pressing a berry; the body and 
the mind are baptized, not by mersion, (the mode is rejected,) 
but by drinking wine. 

(4.) The Jew employs this Greek word, like Classic writers, 
absolutely, and appropriatedly, to denote a specific baptism. 

The Greeks thus used it to express a condition of drunk- 
enness; the Jew used it, on the same principles, to express 
a condition of ceremonial religious purity. There was the 
same right to appropriate to the one use or the other. Alien 
as is drunkenness from purity, the word, in itself, was equally 
susceptible of application in the one direction or the other. 
The baptism of the god Bacchus (C. B., p. 324), and of the 
demi-god Silenus (p. 330), was effected by drinking, and not 
by mersion. The baptism of Jehovah was effected by sprink- 
ling ashes, blood, and water, and not by mersion. This bap- 
tism was, by eminence, Judaic baptism. 

Jewish Baptisms not Dippings. 

3. Jewish baptisms were effected generally neither by 
dippings nor by envelopings, but by influential agencies, 
variously applied, usually by sprinkling. 

This fact stands out in the boldest relief, and governs the 
whole course of Patristic interpretation. This development 
is only a repetition of that in Classic Baptism. There, in 
score after score of baptisms, there is not one word said of 
dipping or of envelopment. Nothing appears but an influ- 
ential agency, changing the condition, after its own nature, 
and thus effecting a baptism. 

The Classics recognized a "power" in wine, and in a drug, 
and in a thousand other things, to baptize. They speak of 
water impregnated with a quality — "incerto medicamine" — 
by which it was able to change the condition of those com- 
ing in contact with it, just as Bethesda's water received a 
"quality," by which it was able to change the condition of 
those coming under its power. 

Let it be pointedly noted, that it teas not the fluid, as such, 



396 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

which effected the baptism, but a foreign " quality," im- 
parted to it, whose "power" to baptize was not restricted 
to any modal use. 

While the Classics use one class of agencies to effect their 
baptisms, the Jews use those of a different character to effect 
their distinctive baptism. The ashes of a red heifer, sacri- 
ficial blood, and living water, have, with them, a power to 
baptize (to change the ceremonial coudition from defilement 
to purity), so as other ashes, blood, or water, have not. This 
shows, demonstrably, that the baptism does not consist in a 
dipping, or in an envelopment, but in an effect produced. 
The Patrists, in like manner, make the baptism to depend 
not on the receptivity of the element, but on a " vis," or 
" qualitas," not inherent in it and not dependent on any 
modal use of it, for its development. A coal of fire, or a 
flaming sword, therefore, can baptize as readily and as legiti- 
mately, as any or as any amount of fluid element. 

A Jew, ritually sprinkled by ashes, (to which, by divine ap- 
pointment, was communicated a power to cleanse from cere- 
monial defilement,) was as truly baptized, as was Aristobulus 
drowned in the fish-pool. 

The evidence is overwhelming, in support of the posi- 
tion, that Jewish baptisms were effected by influential agencies, 
usually, developing their power over the object baptized by the act 

Of SPRINKLING. 

The Theorists made Apologists. 

4. The facts of these Jewish baptisms, and their inter- 
pretation by most learned Grecians, force the theorists into 
an unvarying apologetic attitude. 

Any one who has passed over the course through which 
we have been led, by Jew and Patrist, must profoundly feel, 
that nowhere along the route is aid or comfort to be found 
for the theory which ascribes to Pa--i"(D "one meaning, dip, 
and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature." 

In the baptism of the sword, mersed into Simon's body, 
there is no dipping. In the baptism of the ship, sunk into 



RESULTS. 397 

the sea, there is no dipping. In the baptism of Aristobulus, 
drowned by the Galatians, there is no dipping. In the bap- 
tism of the human race in the deluge waters, there is no 
dipping. In the baptisms by washing, by sprinkling, and 
by pouring, there is no dipping. In the baptism by the 
waving sword, and by the touch of the coal of lire, there is 
no dipping. In the baptism by suffering, and terror, there 
is no dipping. 

Everywhere the theory is called upon to apologize for the 
absence of "the only meaning," and to construct, by some 
extravagance of rhetoric or imagination, a grotesque substi- 
tute for it. 

On the other hand, we confidently appeal to the theorist 
himself, who may think our view to be but a counterfeit of 
the truth, and ask him, Whether counterfeit was ever more 
like the truth ? Whether the truth itself ever met more 
squarely every fact, resolved every difficulty, and moved on 
more harmoniously with the laws of language? 

If the theory is to be sustained, it must be on some other 
ground than that which is covered by Judaic baptism. Here, 
there is but repudiation of its postulations, and a deaf ear 
for its apologies. 

Classic Baptism Confirmed. 

5. The farther investigation, now instituted, confirms the 
conclusion reached in Classic Baptism, that condition of in- 
tusposition involving complete influence, and not modal act, 
is the fundamental idea of the word; while it advances to a 
secondary use, in which intusposition (as the form by which 
the influence is effected) is lost, and influence, in whatsoever 
way operative, (if capable of thoroughly changing the con- 
dition of its object and subjecting it to itself,) takes the 
place of intusposition. 

The illustrations vindicating these positions furnished by 
Judaic Baptism, are, if possible, more explicit and more 
utterly concluding reply, than those found in Classic Bap- 
tism. What can be more out of the reach of all rational 



398 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

opposition, than the baptism by the sprinkling of heifer 
ashes, as announced by Josephus? or by the sprinkling of 
the blood of the lamb, as declared by Ambrose ? What 
should be more conclusive of all controversy as to a dipping 
or an envelopment being essential to a baptism, than a bap- 
tism effected by the waving of a flaming sword, or by the "pour- 
ing of water upon an altar, or the baptism of sin itself? 

I cannot venture to believe that these conclusions will be 
accepted by the present friends of the theory; but I do dare 
to believe that there is such a self-evidencing power in truth, 
that those who come after them, with minds less preoccupied 
with mistaken conceptions, will accept them as truths from 
which there is no escape, and from which, I am happy to be- 
lieve, they will not wish to escape. 

Appropriation — Ceremonial Purification. 

6. Finally, in connection with Jewish ritual purifications, 
po.7tTiZ<o secures the meaning to purify ceremonially. 

Whether, in other relations, it ever expresses a purification 
broader and higher than that which is merely ceremonial, 
is not now a question. Dr. Edward Williams, more than a 
century since, and President Beecher and Professor Godwin, 
more recently, have argued with eminent ability and accom- 
plished scholarship, to show that this word means to purify. 
They failed to establish, fully, their views in the minds of 
thoughtful persons, not because there was not great and evi- 
dent truth in many of their positions, but because the funda- 
mental idea of the word not having been clearly traced out, 
and the development of this specific meaning thence de- 
duced, the truth, while seen, was not seen without a pen- 
umbra, and its boundaries not always accurately indicated. 
They, consequently, put in claim for this meaning, in some 
cases wdiere such claim could not be satisfactorily estab- 
lished, and thus threw doubt over those claims which were 
well grounded. If I were to say, fiaxriXio means to make 
drunk, and then were to apply this meaning to all cases of 
stupefaction, an opponent, who should show that some par- 



RESULTS. 399 

ticular case of stupefaction was produced, not by an intoxi- 
cant, but by an opiate, might shake confidence, not merely 
in that particular application, but in the general position. 

It is essential, to intelligent conviction, that the origin of 
meanings claimed, should be clearly traced, and the limits 
of their dominion be rightfully defined. When this is done, 
conviction of the truth sooner or later is sure to follow. In 
claiming that this word means "to purify ceremonially," we 
acknowledge our obligation to show how this meaning may 
originate under the laws of language, and to show its actual 
development by facts of usage. This obligation we have at- 
tempted to meet. 

!No one questions, but that a sentence of many words, each 
with a distinct thought, may be absorbed by some single 
word of such sentence, which word will express a thought 
the result of the whole. Thus : " He drinks intoxicating 
liquor until he becomes drunk," is abbreviated into, "He 
drinks intoxicating liquor;" and then into, "He drinks;" 
when "drinks" has absorbed the entire sentence, and ex- 
presses the resultant condensed thought of the whole, viz. : 
"He gets drunk." 

And when I say of one: "He is like a drinking man;" 
drinking does not express the act of swallowing a liquid, but 
the condition of a man who is in the habit of getting drunk. 
A new meaning has been secured for the word. So in the 
sentence, "Baptized by wine into drunkenness," abbrevia- 
tion drops "into drunkenness," and then "by wine;" while 
" baptized " remains the sole representative of the whole, 
and expresses the entire resultant thought. Thus: "I am 
one of those baptized" (C. B., p. 317,) means, "I am one of 
those made drunk." And, " He is like one baptized" (C. B., 
p. 330,) means, " He is like one made drunk." The word 
has secured a new meaning. 

Under precisely the same conditions of the laws of lan- 
guage and the facts of usage, frequent in occurrence, and 
reaching through centuries of continuance, fia-ri^o* secures 
the meaning to pur if g ceremoniallg. 

Ko theorist can deny the fitness of the language, "Bap- 



400 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 

tized by heifer ashes, by sacrificial blood, by living water, 
into ceremonial purity." Neither can he deny the lawful 
abbreviation, "baptized by heifer ashes," or that of the 
single word, "baptized;" which word shall embody, within 
itself, the one thought which is the joint product of the 
several parts of the sentence, to wit, made ceremonially pure. 
And when Josephus speaks of "baptizing by heifer ashes," 
he speaks of making ceremonially pure by this agency. And 
when the Son of Sirach speaks of one "baptized from the 
dead," he speaks of one made ceremonially pure. And when, 
two centuries afterward, the Jew wondered that the Sa- 
viour did not " first baptize before eating," he expressed his 
wonder that he did not ceremonially purify himself. Such 
had become the direct meaning of the word, as shown by 
its absolute use, for centuries, in connection with ritual 
purifications. 

The conclusion, then, of our inquiry is this : 
Judaic Baptism is a condition of Ceremonial Purification 
effected by the washing of the hands or feet, by the sprinkling 
of sacrificial blood or heifer ashes, by the pouring upon of water, 
by the touch of a coal of fire, by the waving of a flaming sword, 
and by divers other modes and agencies, dependent, in no wise, on 
any form of act or on the covering of the object. 

With such evidence, deduced from language development, 
sustaining the previous conclusion of Classic Baptism, that 
the word makes demand for a condition and not for a modal 
act; and with such varied, explicit, and authoritative evi- 
dence sustaining the present conclusion of Judaic Baptism, 
that the word makes demand for a condition of ceremonial 
purity; any attempt to overthrow these conclusions can have 
but little happier issue than an attempt to overturn this solid 
globe of ours, while no answer comes to the despairing cry — 

« aoz mo i nor nm." 



>. ■■ •> 



^ v ,r> 



<> 















1 « /■ "<* 



\^ 



- '■ L, O -P " o 







^~> fP N V^, S ^ \^ 
















> N <, <S 






o- -c 



cK ' .0- 

> Sv * 



•/• 




** 



■' 





















* Kt 





















$■ '-t,_ \ 



* 9 



<J 



V 



°> *£■ 















o o x 









<v> 









.+* .'°"'.*>' , o. 



,\ 












O k 



■x* 









<-<, .-y 



:■ 



















LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

III 



1; IIJ IIS II I ill II I ill III 111 llll 

014 665 034 A 



